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.
Aussie
“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?”
C’mon then sport, what’s YOUR killer point? Exactly. You don’t have one. You only here to rant and insinuate at someone YOU don’t like, David Vance.
A superb post from Pounce:
‘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..’
Except this time, when those horrid Joooos are concerned, it’s barely a tenth of the story.
Belongs on a new thread, but worth a mention.
Pretty pictures masquerading as serious science:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7241428.stm
Apparently only about 4% of our oceans are undamaged by human activity, and it’s all down to climate change, fishing and human activity. How does one ‘damage’ an ocean exactly?
A ‘fly-over’ video of the world oceans is provided, using colours to represent varying degrees of impact, but no explanation of exactly what this ‘impact’ actually is. Some kind of utilization metric? Who knows…
“The map is an impetus for action, … a real signal to roll up our sleeves and start managing our coast and oceans.”
they thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don’t say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.
There surely has to time at which funding for this nonsense is withheld until charlatans like these are forced to prove these conjectures and what-ifs, using reproducible results.
“The map is an impetus for action, … a real signal to roll up our sleeves and start managing our coast and oceans.”
Does this mean less fishing, industry, human activity, etc? Then it’s an impetus for inaction!
Unfortunately its not just the Beeb. Sky headline is ‘Racist vandals attack SL building just a week after opening’. And was that Brian Paddick saying ‘we must catch the white racists who did this’?
Watch the story instantly vanish from the news if non-whites are arrested.
“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.”
There may have been a racially charged environment. The attack may have originated with a racially charged incident. But being a racist incident does not necessarily mean it was racially motivated. Indeed, if the attack originated with an incident of racial antagonism (I’m assuming you mean the victim somehow racially offended the accused) then the motive would be largely personal, rather than racial. I have no doubt that race served as a catalyst, but it is understandable that the BBC would require more certainty than that to use the ‘r’ word.
“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.”
You don’t hate Zimbabweans, but I doubt you’re a fan of Robert Mugabe. I’ll bet the shirt off my back that you’re no fan of New Labour, the ruling ideology in Britain, but surely you’re not anti-British?
You have provided, not “many many”, but two incidents of Livingstone personally abusing Jews, and a history of criticism of Israel, which, as one of your articles points out, is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Telling two Indians of Iraqi descent to fuck off back to Iran leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but his words clearly had nothing to do with their being Jewish.
The Finegold incident is slightly misrepresented by the articles. They imply he picked the “concentration camp guard” as an insult simply because it would be most offensive to a Jew. There was in fact a vague and woolly reasoning behind it based on the fact that a Jewish reporter was working for a conglomerate that once supported National Socialism. It seems to me less anti-Semitic than it was incredibly fucking stupid.
Food for thought, didn’t a large proportion of Jews oppose Zionism throughout the nineteenth century?
“Watch the story instantly vanish from the news if non-whites are arrested.”
Well naturally. “Racist attack on Steven Lawrence centre” is news. “Twats break windows” isn’t.
“Well naturally. “Racist attack on Steven Lawrence centre” is news. “Twats break windows” isn’t.”
So can only whites be racist?
Anyway, “Twats break windows” is all we currently know. Anything else is speculation. TBH, the pics make the building look like a greenhouse – an irresistable target to your average vandal, racist or not.
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 |
You are 100% correct. This is an important story that should be reported. Even the framing of the act as a probably racially motivated is IMHO correct.
What is wrong is that BBC always avoids to frame other events as, for example, motivated by Islamic Supremacism for as long as it can.
For example, several weeks ago, they were very careful not to mention the fact that it was a Jihadi that tried to behead a Muslim soldier.
The perpetrators of vandalism on Stephen Lawrence Centre, IMO do not deserve any leniency and should rot in jail for as long as legally possible.
But why is the BBC having a double standard – they have no problem of “prejudicing” the public against these racists, but were very careful not to “prejudice” against Islamic supremacists.
I don’t have the problem with BBC telling me the possible motivation in both cases. But why are the constantly avoiding the 2nd case.
Angry Young Alex | 14.02.08 – 10:12 pm |
There may have been a racially charged environment. The attack may have originated with a racially charged incident. But being a racist incident does not necessarily mean it was racially motivated. Indeed, if the attack originated with an incident of racial antagonism (I’m assuming you mean the victim somehow racially offended the accused) then the motive would be largely personal, rather than racial. I have no doubt that race served as a catalyst, but it is understandable that the BBC would require more certainty than that to use the ‘r’ word.
Except that according to the accused’s own testimony, he isn’t certain how the victim got blamed for the offensive remarks in the first place. He says that another group of students whom he and his gang had confronted were the ones making the remarks. Webster somehow got blamed. We still don’t know, and probably never will, what prompted the offensive remarks, other than the accused’s testimony that he and his gang tried to start something with them. Could the non-whites – *gasp* – have been making racialist remarks as well, and only got “offended” when the white students returned in kind?
The only explanation is that Webster was white, so therefore in the accused’s mind must be somehow responsible. If Webster were Asian and standing next to the group of white students who were confronted by the Asian Invasion boys, he would not have been attacked for it. He became a target simply because of the color of his skin.
According to the victim’s testimony, the Asian Invasion boys were trying to goad him into a fight. He does deny hearing racial taunts from them (oddly this is only reported on the Swindon Nationalist website), and another witness said that they were teasing him about his size, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t target him for racial reasons.
Or maybe it was just because he’s ginger? I realize they’re fair game in Britain.
“He says that another group of students whom he and his gang had confronted were the ones making the remarks. Webster somehow got blamed. Could the non-whites – *gasp* – have been making racialist remarks as well, and only got “offended” when the white students returned in kind?”
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. In fact that’s probably exactly how it happened. But the fact that he got blamed, personally, implies a personal motive for the attack. The run-up was racially charged, but the act itself was personally motivated.
It could have been either way, and so it’s a bad idea for the BBC to postulate.
Funny that I never see Boris on the BBC these days. He was on sky today talking about Bendy busses (a Livingstone idea) and the increase in accidents involving them on some roads.
Food for thought, didn’t a large proportion of Jews oppose Zionism throughout the nineteenth century?
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 10:12 pm |
Simply – NO. Although, the sense of urgency was not there until 1930’s when refugees were forbidden entry into the British Mandate of Palestine and many other Western countries.
Whatever the “crowd” at electronic intifada, or other skillful propaganda site made you think by careful selection of quotes from obscure figures, it is simply not true.
Forming a national state was a dream of most Jews ranging from a stounch Ashkenazi atheist like Theodor Hertzl to a Sefardic rabbi like Judah Alkalai.
By the end of 19th century, virtually all Jewish youth was in a Maccabee or some other pro-Zionist sports club. Many were learning agricultural skills.
They didn’t agree on every aspect of their vision: socialist paradise vs. a normal democracy; what will be the language (German, English, Ladino, Yiddish or Hebrew); etc.
But most were very much in favor of creating a national home.
Only the total nuts like Naturei Carta or Communist Bund were opposed to the idea of Israel (due to some messianic or communist idiocy).
“they thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don’t say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.”
You must throw your television into a skip,immediately.
BTW whereabouts in Deptford did these “white racists” come from?
“The perpetrators of vandalism on Stephen Lawrence Centre, IMO do not deserve any leniency and should rot in jail for as long as legally possible.” Alan @ 10:43
Is actually an interesting comment illustrates much about this argument.
Is this a policy that you think should be pursued against all window breakers, Alan? Say the yobs who kicked in the bus shelter in the High Street? Or the kids who threw stones at your neighbour’s greenhouse? How about whoever broke the widows at the British Legion? Or is their a hierarchy of glass breaking at which the Stephen Lawrence Centre stands at the pinnacle?
Despite the pronouncements to the contrary, I’m not aware that there is any evidence that Stephen Lawrence’s death was any more the result a racist attack than the hammer victim’s. That the alleged perpetrators had expressed racist sentiments is a matter of record, but two trials failed to find them guilty of the offence so they must be presumed innocent. In which case we do not know who killed Stephen Lawrence & we can’t be positive about the motive.
Likewise, the fact that the windows of the Centre have been broken is not evidence of racist motives until the culprits can be apprehended & their intentions established.
Supporters of the BBC are repeatedly to be read on this site telling us that the Corporation occupies a special niche in the media. It is Charter bound we are told to be even handed. To take no sides. To be an instrument of unity not of division.
If the independent media take it upon themselves to attribute racist motives to incidents it is their choice. But it is not a choice free of consequences. Reports can engender fear & distrust within the communities that perceive themselves as victims. Acts of retribution can be encouraged. If the culprits are in due course found, how does this affect their treatment by the justice system? Windows are smashed with monotonous regularity in every street in the land without attracting headline reports. Breaking them does not usually attract even a custodial sentence let alone the prospect of “rot(ting) in jail”
So how does the BBC justify joining the bandwagon & raising the level of division & distrust of anger & fear, by constantly bringing to our attention unsubstantiated allegations of racism in direct contravention of its own self professed purpose?
“So how does the BBC justify joining the bandwagon & raising the level of division & distrust of anger & fear, by constantly bringing to our attention unsubstantiated allegations of racism in direct contravention of its own self professed purpose?”
Exactly,and what happened to the BBC’s doctrine of “social cohesion”?
What would happened if a brick had gone through one of the windows at Canterbury Cathedral and a local resident had said “Muslims”
The fuss over these ‘sacred’ windows is another ploy to get this 3-wheeled Leftie bandwagon of fakery and hypocrisy rolling again.
As usual, the BBC and a mis-guided few in other media do their to help it along.
Home, home on the range…
Of course it’s not racist:
August 4 2007: “Doreen Lawrence attacks Tory frontrunner Johnson, saying black people will not vote for him”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/04/london.localgovernment
February : “Boris bites back…”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6cd3bf0-d9d6-11dc-bd4d-0000779fd2ac.html
Isn’t it obvious?
The Immigration Advisory Service is institutionally racist.
They want to help racist curry firms import more Muslims from Bangladesh because they are racist and do not want to hire WHITES.
No hint of criticism from BBC. Racism is a white crime.
See BBC online 13 February 2008 “Curry houses ‘need more migrants'” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7242095.stm
.
The quality of leftist trolls on this site has visibly declined..we need fresh blood.
Not exactly as significant as a BBC gas leak story (today), but worth following up nationally:-
“Mayor’s aide [Lee Jasper] suspended amid missing funds probe”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23437959-details/Mayor%27s+aide+suspended+amid+missing+funds+probe/article.do
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 10:53 pm |
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. In fact that’s probably exactly how it happened. But the fact that he got blamed, personally, implies a personal motive for the attack. The run-up was racially charged, but the act itself was personally motivated.
No. You can play the “it’s personal” card all you want, and it doesn’t hold up. All internal thoughts and emotions are “personal”, if you want to play that game. So with that nonsense logic there is no such thing as a racist attack.
Your logic is nonsense because an attack is not defined as racist simply because of the internal, “personal” feelings of the attacker. I realize that your Leftoid government, national broadcaster, and educational system have taught you to presume that non-whites are less likely to be racist than whites, but are just angry instead. An attack is defined as racist based on the reason the attacker chooses his victim.
If someone has been harmed by one black man, and he then goes out and harms a different black man, that is racist, regardless of his “personal” motivation for attacking someone.
Qazi did not choose his victim because that’s who insulted him. Qazi chose his victim based on the color of his skin. The motive for the attack is in this case immaterial (although I suspect it will come out in court that Qazi and his gang were the ones who incited the racist remarks). The only thing that matters here is that the victim was chosen only because of his race.
There was no other reason for Webster to be the victim. Qazi may have had a “personal” motive for attacking someone, but he had no “personal” motive for attacking Webster. He attacked Webster for purely racist reasons.
It could have been either way, and so it’s a bad idea for the BBC to postulate.
But the BBC postulates all the time. That’s why they use scare quotes, and words like “alleged” or “possible” (when they feel like it, anyway).
‘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. Bless. Not spent a lot of time in that part of London, have you?
‘The BBC were totally correct to report that windows had been broken at the centre’
I don’t think anyone here has said anything different, have they? All media have covered the story, it’s just that the unbiased ones have attached the qualifier ‘alleged’ or ‘possible’ or have put it in quote marks until such time as there is evidence.
To be fair to the Police they have no say in the matter of whether an incident is racist or not.
I have C&P the definition of a racist incident from the McPherson Report into the Death of Steven Lawrence.
And if you ever want a more stupid definition here it is:-
DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT
12. That the definition should be:
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies.
http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm
See what it says, no evidence of racism just merely “perceived” by anyone.
And lets not forget the biased way the BBC reported the original enquiry almost spitting with disgust at the wild unfounded allegations that were made by “certain” lawyers.
I’ve just seen this on Newsshopper.co.uk….
“Following house-to-house inquiries and the recovery of CCTV footage, three men have been identified in the area.
Two of the suspects are described as white males aged around 16 to 18-years-old, wearing plain dark hooded tops.
The third person is described as a light skinned black man in his late teens or early 20s and shorter than the other two.
He was wearing a dark hat and had facial hair.”
That’s put a spanner in the works.
Of course this is not the first time the bbc has jumped straight in. Lessons should have been learned from this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6149594.stm
Sikh boy’s hair cut by attackers
A 15-year-old Sikh boy had his hair cut during an unprovoked and racist assault in an Edinburgh park, police said.
Then this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm
Sikh teen lied about hair attack
A 15-year-old Sikh boy who claimed he had his hair cut off by racist thugs has admitted he made the attack up.
I watched C4 News last night, having read this blog earlier in the day.
It made me laugh because the evidence that it was a racially motivated attack or at least an attack by someone who feels a grievance against Stephen Lawrence or his supporters.
This was the 4 th attack, attacks started during construction. A memorial to him had previously been defaced. There have been threats made, the building is large and distinctive, not surrounded by any other buildings. It was not a random attack or simple vandalism. It was alos an important anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence case. The evidence is significant, thats why the police are investigating it as a racist attack, and that is the reason the media reports it as such.
Again, you are barking up the wrong tree, jumping to a conclusion without any knowledge of the subject.
Is it cause I is black?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3376209.ece
could be you jumping up the wrong tree.
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
Would McPherson’s definition have stood up in his own court?
“A UF incident is any incident which is perceived to be a UFO incident by the witness or any other person”.
The Man was always a loon.
Joel:
“Is it cause I is black?”
No, it’s cause I is a lefty moron.
Go check the article koop has posted, then come back with your tired racist witch-hunting ideals.
One of the suspects is black, so how does that fit into your theory Poirot?
Don’t expect a reply from Joel too soon. Just like all rabid leftists, they wouldn’t know humility or an apology if they found one in a Latte.
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.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 14.02.08 – 4:09 pm
I don’t follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to Illogical Young Alex.
Point is, we have seen so many examples of the BBC’s starkly different treatment of black or Asian pepetrators or victims of racist crime on the one hand and white on the other that we can predict the BBC’s attitude to any incident even before they inflict it on us. The bias is not debatable, only the extent of the bias and whether the BBC chooses to be more or less subtle about it.
Anyone in doubt about this should watch the BBC’s Fran Unsworth interviewed on Newswatch on the vast difference in the BBC’s reporting on the Anthony Walker and Kriss Donald murders. It’s a fine example of lefty evasiveness, hypocrisy and logical inconsistency when faced with the damaging results of their agenda.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2006/11/racist-murder-bbc-responses-via-dfh-in.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/news_web/video/9012da68002d768/bb/09012da68002d97c_16x9_bb.ram
Sam Leith in the Telegraph with his slant on the Lawrence Building:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/16/do1605.xml
“They want to help racist curry firms import more Muslims from Bangladesh because they are racist and do not want to hire WHITES.”
There’s a bit more to it than that though. Customers expect the staff to look the part. A white-skinned, Polish-speaking waiter isn’t as ‘authentic’. Bollocks, I know, but I’ve a feeling that’s what they mean by ‘cultural sensitivity’.
“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.”
“I don’t follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you should change your pseudonym to Illogical Young Alex.”
There were plenty of white pupils to choose from, yet they came in and picked this one. Compare this to Anthony Walker or Steven Lawrence, who were picked on at random and solely because of their race. The fact that they had a reason to attack a specific white person implies their motives were partially, probably mostly, but not entirely racist.
The BBC report currently contains within it a report that the police are looking for a black man as a suspect and that it was a racially motivated attack.
Does anyone remember this? from 1999
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19990307/ai_n14486453
Lawrence friend, 15, bailed for memorial attack
A MIXED RACE youth has been arrested and bailed by police over the attack which left the Stephen Lawrence memorial plaque defaced
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 16.02.08 – 8:01 am
You are in danger of doing so much hair-splitting you’ll be left with no real hair at all.
Now have a look at Fran Unsworth trying to justify the BBC’s racism (from my link at 15.02.08 – 9:16 pm.)
If you don’t take care, this is what you might become.
Angry Young Alex | Homepage | 16.02.08 – 8:01 am |
There were plenty of white pupils to choose from, yet they came in and picked this one. Compare this to Anthony Walker or Steven Lawrence, who were picked on at random and solely because of their race. The fact that they had a reason to attack a specific white person implies their motives were partially, probably mostly, but not entirely racist.
If you had bothered to read Qazi’s own testimony, you would know that Webster was apparently accidentally blamed for making offensive remarks. Webster was selected as a victim because his skin was the same color as the offenders.
Alex:
“There’s a bit more to it than that though. Customers expect the staff to look the part. A white-skinned, Polish-speaking waiter isn’t as ‘authentic’. Bollocks, I know, but I’ve a feeling that’s what they mean by ‘cultural sensitivity’.”
Your slip is showing Alex.
I’m sure the BBC class would well expect all waiters in a curry house to be of ethnic descent, because that’s how people such as yourself see the world.
What makes me laugh about condescending idiots like you, is the fact that you think this SHOULD be a job for immigrants, without considering for one moment the last job most of them would want would be to serve up curry’s to rude, braying ho-hah Henry types such as yourself and your racist friends.
I’m sure many of them would like to be sat idle behind a desk, drinking Latte, snorting coke in the toilets and preaching loudly to the general public about what a terrible world it is we live in. But as all the plum jobs at the BBC go to white Uni indoctrinated types only, they don’t stand much chance to they?
“I’m sure the BBC class would well expect all waiters in a curry house to be of ethnic descent, because that’s how people such as yourself see the world.”
Hang on, “people such as yourself”? What makes you think that’s what my opinion is? Or should I accuse you of anti-Semitism every time you tell me what Red Ken thinks? I’ll make my post again with the key part in bold so you can read it.
“There’s a bit more to it than that though. Customers expect the staff to look the part. A white-skinned, Polish-speaking waiter isn’t as ‘authentic’. Bollocks, I know, but I’ve a feeling that’s what they mean by ‘cultural sensitivity’.”
Can I ask you to actually read what I say next time, instead of skimming the first couple of lines and then imagining, first where my politics lie, then how someone with those imaginary politics would finish the sentence. Unless you’re a complete illiterate it’s actually easier to read it!
Does any-one know where the criss donald center is,surely its windows are in danger also?
There’s a bit more to it than that though. Customers expect the staff to look the part. A white-skinned, Polish-speaking waiter isn’t as ‘authentic’. Bollocks, I know, but I’ve a feeling that’s what they mean by ‘cultural sensitivity’.
So it’s okay with you then if some veddy veddy English tea-shop owner only hires white English people as servers?
“BOLLOCKS, I KNOW, BUT…“
“Or should I accuse you of anti-Semitism every time you tell me what Red Ken thinks?”
WTF are you drivelling about now you foaming tosspot.
Seriously mate, masturbate or something, you’re starting to get on my nerves.
Not sure why the vicious antisemite and general fascist KL should be described as a ‘clown’: would you call Goebbels a ‘clown’?
“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?” — what brainless nonsense. DV is expressing his views. So are you. In fact, the ranting from you is consistently more stupid than anything from DV.
“I’m sure the BBC class would well expect all waiters in a curry house to be of ethnic descent” — what ignorant nonsense. EVERYONE is of ‘ethnic descent’.