Did you read this BBC report which repeats Ken Livingstone’s wild accusation that the breaking of six windows at the Stephen Lawrence Centre, in Deptford, was racially motivated? A police spokesperson said: “Hundreds of windows are broken each week in London and this is a minor investigation. A member of the public has suggested it was racially motivated so we have to investigate it as such.” So on such a flimsy unsubstantiated basis, Red Ken – that malignant Jihad-sympathising IRA-loving Jew-hating clown – weighs in with his allegation of a racist motive and the BBC lovingly carries it without anyone to counter it. There is nothing that excites the leftists than a sniff of racism – although the racism has to be of a particular hue – so when Livingstone likens a reporter for a Jewish paper to a Nazi concentration guard, why that’s just a little misunderstanding and the very notion of racism is banished!
THE RACISM JAMBOREE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Hang on – the Mail and the Telegraph carry exactly the same story.
The Mail give it even longer and more prominence.
Can’t see the BBC bias here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514407&in_page_id=1770
So the point is that the BBC shouldn’t report the story? Or that David Vance is using the blog as his personal soapbox to rant at people he doesn’t like?
The BBC, racist attacks and half the story..
The BBC is more than happy to loft high the racist banner over a smashed window or two. yet it remains somewhat silent on another racist story doing the rounds. Funny enough the rest of the media report this story but not the BBC. I wonder why?
Assaults on Jews in UK hit record levels
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/14/njew114.xml
Jews suffering more violence than ever, report says
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/race.ukcrime?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews
Violent attacks on British Jews at record level
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514398&in_page_id=1770&ito=newsnow
But hey smash a few windows south of the river and the BBC promotes it as the only news.
The BBC, racist attacks and half the story..
The BBC News 24 ticker had an amusing typo. Ken Livingstone was supposedly “disguested” at this act. Hopefully “disguested” come 1st May!
The Sky News ticker rightfully stated this was an alleged ‘racist’ attack. The BBC ticker simply stated it was a racist attack. No “alleged”, no “says”, no “so-called”, no single quotation marks.
Despite scant information the BBC were treating an allegation as fact. Hardly a surprise for an organisation so steeped in cultural-marxism but utterly stupid since it could prejudice a future trial.
Metroman,
Didn’t see those reports but moonbat nibbler gets the point here – it was an ALLEGED racist attack, based on what ONE person thought! Livingstone jumped on it – quelle surprise – and he was afforded an undisputed soapbox!
So the fact that the Guardian reported the story on the rise of anti-semitic attacks proves that even liberals report these things?
Or that the BBC’s news judgement is questionable? We all know that.
Or that David Vance thinks that Ken Livingstone’s actions should or should not be reported?
What?
Where is the BBC bias in the story?
Let’s be fair, as far as we know it’s only that one Jew Ken Livingstone hates.
Young Alex, Livingstone is on record as saying he thinks the founding of the state of Israel was a mistake. You will no doubt read something else into that but I take it as meaning he hates those 6 or 7 million Jews who are Israeli citizens.
He’s also a supporter of the undeniably antisemitc Sheik Qadarwi and has himself made many statements that indicate that he hates Jews. Full stop.
The bias lies in the attribution of an allegation, by one person, as a fact. Got it?
AYA,
Ken’s enthusiasm for Qaradawi suggests his hatred extends beyond one Jew.
Is this amateur hour for BBC apologists.
David Vance | 14.02.08 – 3:25 pm
The bias lies in the attribution of an allegation, by one person, as a fact. Got it?
But the one person is a police spokesman. Surely that’s okay?
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said it was being investigated as a racially-motivated incident.
Who is moderating this blog now ? It used to be slightly over moderated, but a couple of threads ago there was a deranged rant at DV by angry old aussie and there is a shorter, but still irrelevant post by him today. Its very tiresom having someone like him posting personal attacks and distracting people from the beeboid / nulab menace.
Is “Hundreds of windows are broken each week in London and this is a minor investigation” not a counter in itself?
I agree that this story is inconsequential but then I’m always bemused by non-Londoners who believe that the fact that Ken is mates with Chavez and Gerry Adams and dislikes the Evening Standard (including its Jewish employees) should somehow outweigh how his policies directly impact on Londoners’ lives.
And yes I know Ken is a tosser but so is Michael O’Leary and I still very much appreciate his airlines’ fares and reliability in comparison with the competition.
The BBC bias is shown in the coverage of this story, compared to the few lines given (only on a regional page) to the second day of the jury’s deliberations over an attack with a hammer, carried out upon Henry Webster, 16, by a gang of four asians, outside his school in Wiltshire, leaving him brain damaged. On the rare ocasions that the BBC mention this case at all, it is never reported as a racist incident.
“The bias lies in the attribution of an allegation, by one person, as a fact”
Is calling Livingstone a “malignant Jihad-sympathising IRA-loving Jew-hating clown” is you showing we mere mortals how attribute allegations properly?
Stephen, I wonder If those Asians might in any way be followers of the Rop ?
“Young Alex, Livingstone is on record as saying he thinks the founding of the state of Israel was a mistake. You will no doubt read something else into that but I take it as meaning he hates those 6 or 7 million Jews who are Israeli citizens.”
Please explain yourself. How does believing the founding of Israel was a mistake automatically lead to hatred of every single one of its citizens? Or are the children of unplanned pregnancies never loved by their parents.
“He…has himself made many statements that indicate that he hates Jews. Full stop.”
Actually, I wouldn’t end that with a full stop, I’d end it with a ” and a sample of these statements.
“Ken…dislikes the Evening Standard (including its Jewish employees)”
People here hate the BBC including its Jewish employees. What’s your point? Please try harder.
You have to admit that with Livingstone and his crew up to their neck in allegations about ‘unaccounted funds’ this vandalism story would be the perfect way of “burying bad bews” about the LDA, as it were.
Certainly Ken has lost no time in jumping on the soapbox.
I find it curious that there was no accompanying graffiti which is common in racist attacks. Be interesting to see how it is treated tonight on TV. If Ken does a walkabout that will be interesting.
Certainly a very valid story. David Vance is quite within his rights in writing about this on B-BBC.
From the Press Association:
A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: “The incident is being treated as racial. That follows an allegation by a member of public. The incident is being investigated by our hate crime unit at Lewisham CID.”
Oh, and there are currently reporting restrictions in place in the Henry Webster case.
“The BBC bias is shown in the coverage of this story, compared to the few lines given (only on a regional page) to the second day of the jury’s deliberations over an attack with a hammer, carried out upon Henry Webster, 16, by a gang of four asians, outside his school in Wiltshire, leaving him brain damaged. On the rare ocasions that the BBC mention this case at all, it is never reported as a racist incident.”
The two cases are totally different. To refer to the hammer attack as racially motivated during the Jury’s deliberation is not only highly presumptuous but also unwarranted editorialising. With the vandalism of the Stephen Lawrence centre the police have actually stated that they are treating it as racially motivated, so it would be tremendously biased of the BBC to omit this.
Now also, in the hammer attack, although the association of the gang may have been racially motivated, this is not cause to assume the crime was also. That contrary to your report, they actually entered the school premises, implies that they were after a specific pupil and so that motives other than race were behind it. Your only reason for believing it to be racist seems to be the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
Please explain yourself. How does believing the founding of Israel was a mistake automatically lead to hatred of every single one of its citizens? Or are the children of unplanned pregnancies never loved by their parents.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 3:59 pm |
Please, keep the analogies on par with your intellectual capability so that they actually help your case.
If a mother and her family constantly keep saying to everyone that bringing a child to the world was a mistake it is a clear case of child abuse.
Alex, that the police have said that they will treat it as racially motivated, means next to nothing until we see evidence that there is a racial motive.
Given the climate in south east London they could hardly do anything esle. Especially in the wake of McPherson and with Livingstone and his crew breathing down their necks.
I’l give you an example of how carefully the Lewisham division treat racial policies.
From January they have been inviting local black teenagers to help train local police officers in how to carry out stop and search ‘respectfully’
The Safer Neighbourhoods inspector wants to put all 700 officers in the borough through the course, which is being run by Race Equality Action for Lewisham (REAL).
That gives you an idea of the way things are in Lewisham – the kids tell the cops what to do.
Since JRs are nowhere to be seen, are we to assume that Angry is one of its instances?
Please explain yourself. How does believing the founding of Israel was a mistake automatically lead to hatred of every single one of its citizens? Or are the children of unplanned pregnancies never loved by their parents.
…
What’s your point? Please try harder.
Angry Young Alex | 14.02.08 – 3:59 pm
I’m afraid I’m getting too tired of you to be bothered to try any harder, if you can’t see why the negation of the right to exist of the state of Israel is an expression of hatred for its citizens.
The “I’m not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist” ploy just doesn’t work any longer, just as the old “I’m not a racist but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a nigger” line doesn’t pass muster.
Livingstone himself tried to change the subject from his antisemitic outburst to criticism of Israel and Ariel Sharon. The man is despicable. As Lord jenner once said in the House of Lords, “One cannot always see antisemitism, but one can always smell it”, and Livingstone stinks to high heaven.
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/02/the_ken_livings.html
http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=311
http://www.jonathanfreedland.com/articles/archives/000196.html
http://www.z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=2
“The “I’m not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist” ploy just doesn’t work any longer, just as the old “I’m not a racist but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a nigger” line doesn’t pass muster.”
Hear, hear. Some of David’s best friends are muslim, don’t you know?
With the vandalism of the Stephen Lawrence centre the police have actually stated that they are treating it as racially motivated, so it would be tremendously biased of the BBC to omit this.
Now also, in the hammer attack, although the association of the gang may have been racially motivated, this is not cause to assume the crime was also. That contrary to your report, they actually entered the school premises, implies that they were after a specific pupil and so that motives other than race were behind it. Your only reason for believing it to be racist seems to be the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 4:09 pm | #
To be fair to DV (ugh!) as I undertand it the police HAVE to treat incidents as racially motivated if a victim claims to perceive them as such. So the police treat it as racially motivated simply because one person claims they thought it was (with no apparent evidence). The BBC story could make this clear. It’s not as if they didn’t know: in their own reporting of the results of the national crime survey on racially motivated crimes they themselves asked, for instance, how the thousands of Asians complaining of racially motivated car crimes could be sure that they were actually racially motivated (can’t find the reference – a Google search should throw it up).
Apropos the hammer attack my memory is that the details – and the races involved were fully reported in the non-bbc media – and there has been earlier discusion in blogs – including this one – about why the Beeb – of all those reporting it – left out the “detail” that this was an attack by a gang of Asian youths on a white youth.
It was in the context of a search of the Beeb News site showing up far more reports of white on black racially motivayed violence than vice versa – though the national crime statistics showed more black on white incidents outnumberd white on black.
BJ,
The police are investigating it as racial because they have to if an allegation of such has been made.
If you tell the police that you saw “a white geezer hitting a black bloke” that would be investigated as racial. That does not mean it is.
The point here is quite a simple one: neither Ken Livingstone nor the BBC should be calling it racial at this point in time; it should be qualified as ‘alleged’ or ‘possible’ as, indeed, other news organisations are doing.
I think the race-hustler Beeboids are starting to back-track:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7244835.stm
“Stephen Lawrence site vandalised
The building was opened by the mayor last week
A building dedicated to the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence in south-east London has been vandalised only a week after being officially opened.”
The point here is quite a simple one: neither Ken Livingstone nor the BBC should be calling it racial at this point in time; it should be qualified as ‘alleged’ or ‘possible’ as, indeed, other news organisations are doing.
Rob Clark | 14.02.08 – 4:42 pm |
Exactly! Only a couple of weeks ago, BBC defenders on this board have used the Common Law obligation to due process to justify the fact that BBC avoided to mention that it was an Islamist group behind a plot to behead a Muslim soldier.
If our only news source was the BBC, we wouldn’t have known until the very end that it was Jihadi motivated crime. On the contrary, we would have assumed that it was a crazed Christian acting against a Muslim Soldier, the way it was presented.
Contrast this to the current case of broken windows. The first article to appear, before even an initial police investigation, already makes allegations of the (white) racist motives, and doesn’t even put a prefix “ALLEGED”.
David Vance was right to point out the double standard at play here.
It is not about this case, it is about the double, biased standard.
Just one thing in London if you suffer petty crime you can either a) report it and nothing happens b) report it and say it is racist and the police take it seriously.
My wife is not white and we always report crime as racist so we get treated better. Of course such abuse of the system could one day cause it to collapse but I want that to happen !!!
Livingstone seem to be confused,is he saying windows have a race? This might explain the smashed bus shelters and other public glazing assaults one sees so frequently.
There needs to be a an anti-windowist outreach team to stamp this out.
Racial murders: nearly half the victims are white
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/ukcrime.race
The Beeb relentlessly pursues a multi-culti agenda – a large part of which means consistently portraying white people as the only offenders in any race controversy. This can clearly be seen from their reporting, simply enter “racially motivated” into the BBC search engine and you will get page after page of black victim victimhood, with perhaps a few East Europeans in there too. This represents a gross distortion of the actual crime figures which reveal that over threequarters of race crime victims are white.
Another example can be seen on the current BBC “Have Your Say” debate.
Does Europe risk becoming a fortress?
A predictably leading question. Debate closed after 3 hours when the Beeb gets answers it doesn’t approve of.
This Have Your Say is
CLOSED
DEBATE STATUS
Total comments:
682
Published comments:
371
Rejected comments:
21
HYS
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4286&edition=1
Race Crime
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article633759.ece
“The police are investigating it as racial because they have to if an allegation of such has been made.”
Only because they [the police] have introduced a rule that requires them to do so.
talking of rascism,nice to see one beeboid’s not buying it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3371206.ece
“Lenny Henry calls for a black dg (Director-General). Any black dg?”, she wrote in the BBC magazine. “Regardless of merit, or who they are or what they might have done?”
The Peabody award winner mocked the comedian’s argument. “What about a Polish dg?” Ms Frenkiel asked. “Lots of Poles in Britain today. What about a dg with frizzy hair? Or one who’s disabled? Or incredibly small.”
Ms Frenkiel concluded: “For goodness sake, campaign for a person to be dg – not for a colour. I am still offended by Greg Dyke’s lamenting of the BBC as ‘hideously white’. Why is it okay to vilify white people for their colour not black ones? It’s insulting.”
If this story proves anything, it’s how to get our P.C PC’s to do anything when it comes to crime. Just like the BBC they go weak at the knees when the word ‘racism’ is added to anything otherwise mundane.
A tip I swear by. If ever you are a victim of an assualt, a burglary, your car gets broken into, or you are on the recieving end of a bit of road rage, ALWAYS tell the coppers – when dialling 999 – that the crime was racially motivated.
This will have the old bill on your door ten times faster than usual. Naturally the will assume you are brown, but won’t dare ask this on the phone.
Of course, their faces always drop when they arrive to see a white face on the receiving end of the crime, but it’s too late they’re already there.
By the way, this doesn’t work if you are black. Because any crime comitted against you is automatically assumed to be racial, and therefore expect priority anyway. Just remember to add lots of Abdullahs into your name when phoning up the old bill.
The BBC. Dem racists is everywhere. EVERYWHERE!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2652896.ece
Angry Young Alex | 14.02.08 – 4:09 pm |
Now also, in the hammer attack, although the association of the gang may have been racially motivated, this is not cause to assume the crime was also. That contrary to your report, they actually entered the school premises, implies that they were after a specific pupil and so that motives other than race were behind it. Your only reason for believing it to be racist seems to be the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
Nonsense. The attack on the victim originated with an incident of racial antagonism, in a racially charged environment established at least in part by the accused.
– I’m splitting this into two posts, as haloscan doesn’t seem to like me doing so many links.
Amjad Qazi has testified that it all started when some students shouted offensive words to him and his Asian friends, according to this report in ThisIsWiltshire.co.uk, which naughtily mentions Qazi’s religion. He states that he wanted to “sort Webster out”, although later seems to indicate that the victim my have been wrongly blamed for the offensive remarks.
Qazi actually blames his former family friend, co-defendant Wasif Khan, for bringing the hammer. Khan, of course blames Qazi for bringing the hammer, and even says that he had no idea there would be violence. This is, of course, as practically every other report says that the fight had been pre-arranged, including one with the victim’s own testimony.
-Continued in my next comment –
Response to Angry Young Alex Continued:
Further, other witnesses from the school say that the accused were “were in a gang called the Asian Invasion.” It seems that they had already established a racially antagonist environment for themselves at the school.
So your defense doesn’t hold up. One of the accused states that the attack originated with a racially charged incident. The accused attackers who attended the school had engaged in racial antagonism. This is a racist incident.
“”We were disappointed that the BBC compounded the issue by choosing to utilise the full weight of their very powerful publicity machinery to inflate disproportionately the importance and value of their findings about alleged corruption.””
This is Scotland Yard saying this. Not Joe ordinary on his blog.
Obviously Scotland Yard don’t understand journalism. The BBC don’t always get it right. It’s obvious that the problem arises from the fact that the words “Stephen Lawrence” is very long and doesn’t fit the 32 character template of news headlines properly. “Racist Killers” is 3 characters shorter however, so it obviously gets more airtime.
Anyway, maybe if the Met stopped kow-towing to all these P.C nuts they wouldn’t be on the receiving end of it quite so often would they?
David,
The fact that windows were broken at the Stephen Lawrence Centre would automaticaly make the impartial reader think that it was a racially motivated act of vandalism.
Stephen Lawrence was murdered due to his skin colour, and you would do well to remember that before using this newsworthy story as a front to attack Ken Livingstone, I cannot abide Livingstone and nor can I abide your rampant anti-Muslim rhetoric.
The BBC were totally correct to report that windows had been broken at the centre, and as has been pointed out earlier the Daily Mail also felt that this attack was newsworthy.
I suggest David that you should stick to the charter of this blog which is to root out examples of BBC Bias.
The fact that windows were broken at the Stephen Lawrence Centre would automaticaly make the impartial reader think that it was a racially motivated act of vandalism.
Joe (The Netherlands) | 14.02.08 – 7:31 pm
i prefer proof.
“Stephen Lawrence was murdered due to his skin colour, and you would do well to remember that before using this newsworthy story as a front to attack Ken Livingstone,”
Joe, nobody is seeking to belittle the tragedy of Lawrence’s death, but people have a right to be annoyed when politicians exploit it, and the BBC refuses to report it accurately.
Joe:
“The fact that windows were broken at the Stephen Lawrence Centre would automaticaly make the impartial reader think that it was a racially motivated act of vandalism.”
Uhm…ye-es. That’s what the BBC want you to think Joe. Do try to keep up.
As there is no proof, the BBCs point of view and your own is pure conjecture.
Incidentally Joe, since when did you feel you had the right to dictate on a British blog about the way the writers of this blog should steer their commentary? I don’t feel David Vance is engaging in any anti-muslim rhetoric as you put it. he is voicing a mood that many people feel in this UK. As you would know nothing about this, could I in turn you suggest you keep your politically correct comments to yourself.
Koop,
As I mentioned the impartial reader would automaticaly ‘Think’ that it was a racially motivated act, I was not there so I cannot say one way or the other.
The fact that this young man was killed because he was black is proven, so any attack on a centre named after him would at the very least make you think that the vandalism had a racial element to it.
Joe (The Netherlands) | 14.02.08 – 7:43 pm |
your probably right joe,but as someone who has lived in the uk for 40 years ive seen a fair bit of mindless vandalism here,so i’d still prefer a bit of proof and not as bodo says conjecture.
In response to the People Front of Judea,
I live in Maastricht during the week, I live in London during the weekend, I pay my license fee in the UK and I also pay a subscription for BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4 in Holland, I was born in London.
That gives me every right to have an opinion on the BBC and what goes on in the UK.
I am far from being PC, the only thing I agree with you on is that my post is my own opinion, which is the same as you making an opinion on my nationality & political views.
Perhaps you might also have taken a second to think why I post on this site, I do so because I am fed up with the BBC’s bias againstIsrael, the US, Conservatives and the Catholic Church, which would I imagine make me a very poor candidate for being labled ‘PC’.
Joe,
The kids here don’t need motivating to vandalise anything,they just naturally talented that way.Certainly a few snakebites,a bit of crack or skunk helps them to go about the job with gusto.
Here every week the glass on the, admittedly French, bus shelters go in.Two very British telephone boxes were so regularly trashed that they were removed completely.
not as bodo says conjecture.
koop | 14.02.08 – 7:48 pm | #
drrr
sorry i was actually quoting peoples front of judea,dont know why i thought it was bodo.