Plenty of stuff on the BBC website about the conviction of Florida teenager Shawn Tyson for the cold blooded murder of two young British tourists with coverage of the touching tributes given by their friends. But, as far as I have checked, the BBC, unlike ITN, has obviously forgotten to include another statement by one of the friends.
Joe Hallett, a friend of James Kouzaris and James Cooper has spoken of his “dissatisfaction” at the lack of messages of support or condolence from the US government or President Obama.
He said Mr Kouzaris’ father has written to President Obama on three separate occasions and has yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.
I wonder why?
Perhaps it’s because President Obama avoids any statement about specific crimes to avoid inflaming an already emotional issue….
From one of the ITV reports: this was just BEFORE the killings:
“The three young men should never have been there. One, a man in build but not in age, had just been involved in a shooting. A judge said he posed a danger to the public but he was released by police.”
Perhaps Obama’s lack of involvement in this (something which in a media sense should have been a much bigger story then the current Martin/Zimmerman) was to avoid high-lighting the craziness of when and how police release their ‘charges’.
I can’t remember the exact Obama quote from the Martin/Zimmerman case where he said the “victim” either looked like him or looked like his son. Here, of course, he could say the same of the murderer. Can’t think why he wouldn’t play that line…
The Obama quote was “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon:”.
Especially because the murderers statement starts ‘I saw two crackers walking down the street’ – ‘crackers’ is a racist term for white people, kind of like ‘honkey’…..
Could Obama’s reticence have something to do with this picture of a charming young man in orange?
I have also noted – elsewhere in the media – some criticism of the US justice system for having allowed the killer out of jail. The Beeb didn’t forget, they white washed. BBC headlines on the radio ran with ‘…familes are satisfied with the sentence…’ All just hunky-dory. No ‘ishooos’ here.
This tragedy involved a black yoof in confrontation with 2 white men and no use of the word ‘racist’ to be seen. Strange that….
Odd isn’t it that the main story on the BBC website of the conviction and sentencing of this piece of human detritus features at first instance the assertions of defence counsel:
“The case against a teenager accused of murdering two British tourists in Florida is based on “threats, deals and lies,” his defence lawyer said.”
So, to the BBC, it’s already a potential or actual miscarriage of justice.
IMHO, if the convicted perp is guilty (not a big “if”), the severity of the sentence is something our CINO Lord Chancellor and “Justice” Secretary Ken Clarke should instruct our judiciary to emulate for similar crimes over here.
Umbungo, this story on the defence counsel’s closing statement was published just after the jury retired to consider its verdict.
Ooops! My bad re the BBC.
I’d still be happy (and astonished) if Clarke recommended the same degree of severity as meted out to Tyson for similar crimes here.
What does ‘my bad’ mean? I’ve noticed it has been used on several occasions recently and I don’t know where it has originated.
See the Urban Dictionary.
The criticism of the President is obviously racist, so the BBC doesn’t need to mention it. >_>
We all know by now what the BBC/Guardians take on this will be.
1. One in the eye for whitey in response to the slave trade…deferred PTSD.
2. Serves the saps right for being on the wrong side of the tracks without a press pass.
3. This eco-warrior was only, in his inarticulate way, protesting the waste of air miles as well as being pro-active in demanding serving less alcohol to young white men…that he was a bit harsh about these issues is regrettable, but understandable.
4. Mardell, Stafford Smith and the like will surely want him to attand compulsory hug-ins with Batmanghedghli once we try to extradite him for serious counselling and community based punishment….it`s no easy option you know!
Even though the BBC is in love with President Obama how can they ignore reporting this? What will the spin be?
They’ve moved on already. Nothing further needs to be reported unless and until Zimmerman is arrested and then in court. Nothing else is worthy of the BBC News agenda.
Apparently Trayvon’s mother has applied for a patent for the use of her son’s name. This will cover CDs, DVD’s and use of the expression, Justice for Trayvon.
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-trayvon-martin-trademarks,0,3307250.story
Idiotic race hustler Obama would’ve been absolutely bloody perfect for the lead role in Carry On at Your Convenience!
Whenever journalists want to whitewash a crime, the tactic is all the ways the same: blame the victims. They “were in the wrong place”. Took a wrong turn and ended up where they shouldn’t be. They were architects of their own demise.
So here we have the “Ian Huntley Defence”. Poor little Holly her friend were in wrong place at the wrong time. If they hadn’t crossed Huntley’s path they might still be alive today. They must have taken a wrong turn. The defence rests.
Isn’t it a bit racist to say that a housing project full of poor black people is the “wrong place”?
If Obama had a son he’d look like the shooter.
I learn from “Newsbeat” that trailers for Ben Stiller’s new film “Neighborhood Watch” are to be pulled from cinemas over fears they are insensitive. Here’s the text of the Newsbeat opening paragraphs:
“It comes after the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida, last month.
He was killed by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, who said he was acting in “self defence” after the 17-year-old looked “suspicious”.
So “self-defence” and “suspicious” are in quotes. Wonder which side Newsbeat is on?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/17548011
They’re using the quotation marks because they’re actually quoting Zimmerman’s own words. It’s unfortunate, however, that the Newsbeat team decided to censor the fact that the shooting actually occurred because Zimmerman and Martin were engaged in a physical altercation.
The way they describe the incident here leaves the door wide open for people to assume that Zimmerman shot Martin simply because he thought the black teenager looked “suspicious”. Which is how the media has mostly reported it, and the Beeboids know it. They also know that informing children that there was a physical fight could lead them to imagine that there might begin to be the slightest hint of validity for a claim of self defense. Even if it’s a stretch, since Martin was unarmed. Can’t have that, can we? So it’s best to just censor the facts entirely, and remove any chance for impure thoughts.