I know we’ve done a lot on Zimmerman already but I couldn’t let this pass without a blogpost.
Take a look at the considered opinion of BBC News Channel journalist Robert Rea on the day of the Zimmerman verdict. Rea claims Zimmerman only shot Martin because he was black, and it was shameful that he wasn’t found guilty by the jury. All twelve of them.
@Chelsea_Lass had he been blond and blue-eyed, Zimmerman wouldn't have shot him. He did so because Trayvon was black. Shameful verdict
— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013
@Chelsea_Lass and what's worse is it wasn't the Law that cleared Zimmerman. The Law put him on trial. It was a jury. 12 ordinary people
— Robert Rea (@robertrea) July 14, 2013
The jurors sat through all the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman was not guilty.
Rea’s grasp of the proceedings is such that he didn’t even know there were only six jurors.
His reaction is typical of many – an emotional response to a superficial narrative promoted by an agenda-driven media. That he can work in a BBC newsroom and be so ignorant of simple details of the trial is embarrassing, and doesn’t say much for the BBC’s own coverage of the court case. Of course, not knowing what went on in the courtroom didn’t prevent him from denouncing the jury for coming to the wrong verdict. It was just obvious the verdict was wrong, wasn’t it? It was the accepted wisdom in the newsroom.
This trial-be-damned Justice-4-Trayvon emoting has characterised the tweets of those BBC journalists I’ve seen commenting on the case. Just this morning I stumbled on a couple more from the day of the verdict.
BBC journalist Jo Deahl:
George Zimmerman. I know it's been said all day but… Really? REALLY?
— Jo Deahl (@elvisismyguru) July 14, 2013
BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast Show producer Laura Harmes:
So sad at Trayvon Martin verdict. Forget race, how can it be right that an unarmed boy gets pursued and shot dead and his killer walks free?
— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013
@ageywage @NatashaSHenry it appears it is. My point was look at the basic facts of the case. A man killing an innocent boy.
— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 14, 2013
@Westofthelaw I'm not sure Zimmerman being Hispanic is relevant. It's about how white jury felt towards Trayvon.
— Laura Harmes (@lauraharmes) July 16, 2013
Further ignorance of, and disdain for, the jury there. And once again an emotional superficial understanding of the case.
A few days ago Richard Lawson, senior producer at Radio 5 Live, blocked me on Twitter for the following tweet:
@richardlawson79 No, "the world" is not aghast. It just seems that way if you work for the Guardian or the BBC. #groupthink
— DB (@4d2b) July 20, 2013
I’ve read lots of tweets by BBC hacks expressing sadness and anger over the verdict, and seen lots of links from them to articles in lefty publications reinforcing those emotions. I’ve yet to find a BBC journalist who tweeted that the Zimmerman verdict was right and proper.
Until evidence to the contrary emerges I’ll stick with my verdict: groupthink.
Most of this video has been covered, but the material collected here is a damnation of the MSM in the US as well as the BBC.
The truth has not be revealed by the journaists but by dedicated individuals.
I saw this a few days ago. Excellent.
Same here-thanks for posting this up whoever did so a few days ago.
Devastating to the liberal hand wringing bedwetters in bad wigs….so no mention of any of THIS on the BBC!
Speaking of liberal bedwetting types….where are ours?
Seem awfully quiet on this story, and they are normally sooooooo vocal on issues involving “waaaaaysism”
Must be the wrong type of racism, eh?…nudge, nudge.
twas me dear … but its great to see it again … essential viewing and well worth a second watch ….
mr whittle, his epilogue is a master stroke
I wasn’t aware that it had been posted before, but for many like myself who may have missed it, good material is worth repeating.,
After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” Patrick Buchanan concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white – with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”
Or the Chicago Police Department reports from 2003 to 2011 which provide a statistical breakdown of the demographics of both the victims and offenders in the 4,265 murders in Chicago over that time period. See this.
While blacks are 33 percent of population, they commit 75 percent of the murders and whites who comprise 32 percent of population were offenders in just 4 percent of the killings.
While equal in numbers in the population, blacks commit almost 1900 percent more killings than whites. If this is not something important to notice I don’t know what is.
Or the FBI crime report which states that 53.1 percent of the murder offenders were black.
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/07/comments-on-obama-and-trayvon-cont/#more-57425
Obama should be vilified by the media for his comments, but the BBC praise him for them. Absolutely disgraceful.
what ? … this Barrack Obama?
This is the first time I have seen this, I followed the trial on Fox so had a fair idea of the evidence presented and the outrageous behaviour of the Judge. The information about the ‘Lean’ and the liver damage from the autopsy is new to me and I find it even more disgusting than I already had done that race baiters like Sharpton etc but above all Barack bloody Obama have been allowed to keep their vile and hateful narrative going by the left and especially for consumption in this country by the BBC.
Can any of the trolls that visit here justify why the BBC maintains the evil white man innocent black boy meme. What on Earth was the editorial meeting like when they decided to ignore evidence and transmit to the British public the lies as gushed by the prosecution and their fellow travellers?
There was no editorial meeting. It’s not necessary. They all think the same way already, which is why the same opinion appears throughout several areas of the BBC. The institutional bias occurs naturally.
Bill Whittle just tweeted:
Excellent…hope it gets to one billion!
‘ONE MILLION views in less than six days.’
Not one of them a world class BBC journo -apparently.
I saw this a few days ago. Excellent.
As you say, DB – complete ignorance by these BBC clowns of all the evidence given in the case – let alone the adverse facts about Trayvon Martin that were mentioned in Bill Whittle’s piece.
They START by being prejudiced in line with their groupthink. That is bad enough. But to ignore all the facts brought out in a lengthy trial, to try to dismiss the entire jury as in-effect racists, is deplorable.
I saw the bulk of the trial live. If anything, it was the prosecution’s witnesses who gave the most telling evidence of Zimmerman’s innocence. It was a travesty of justice that it was even brought to court. There was not a scintilla of evidence to suggest George Zimmerman acted with racism in his heart, nor that he had “stalked” Martin. To the contrary, it was Martin that had described Zimmerman in racist terms and had sought the confrontation (says Martin’s “girlfriend”) and Martin who had been beating Zimmerman’s head into the concrete path (said the only eye-witness who saw this from a few yards away). Zimmerman freely told the police time after time what had happened – without benefit of any lawyer – and the local Sanford police had believed him, found his accounts consistent, and had decided there was no case to answer.
It was pure political race-baiting spite – led by Obama – that railroaded Zimmerman into court, that has caused continuing threats against him and his family – and has even caused threats against the family he dragged from a car crash last week.
And the BBC was – still is – part of the witchhunt against Zimmerman. Shame on them, utter shame.
Hear hear.
And when a Sanford cop tried to bluff Zimmerman by saying the incident had been caught on tape Zimmerman replied, “Thank God!”
hope you re not piers morgan luvvies 😀
http://youtu.be/zLN7btxAX5k
Elder wiped the floor with the bien pensant Morgan, who makes me ashamed to be British. How refreshing to hear the argument that excuse-making for Black crime and underachievement is itself a form of racism, the racism of low expectations.
Ask Piers how many Viglen shares he has left!
Shame heaped upon shame. Robert Rea may be interested to know that four alternate jurors sat in on the trial but played no part in delivering the verdict. One of these alternate jurors has given an interview and he too would have returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
One has to wonder what this display of clear denial of the facts means for the integrity of BBC journalism. Never mind Rea’s infantile leap from profiling to shooting. If they can so blatantly disregard eyewitness testimony and the forensic, proven facts of this case, what other stories are they getting wrong because their personal belief system won’t allow them to think clearly and prejudices their comprehension?
As usual, the silence from lurking journalists will be deafening.
Very true and more to the point what evidence from which stories has the BBC suppressed in order to get these views heard?
How do we know any story that the BBC reports contains all the pertinent facts?
No wonder they support any attempt to freeze out other news groups with contrary views.
I posted Bill Whittle’s video piece several days ago. It should be required viewing for the whole damn BBC.
Ta John-and to all the rest of you for posting these clips.
Pat Condell…Dore Gold…I owe you all!
Keep `em coming!
That Zimmerman is a nasty piece of work, just the other day he saw a road traffic accident, and would you believe he just couldn’t resist getting out of his vehicle again as if he was some sort of wannabe cop…
http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/07/22/george-zimmerman-pulls-family-from-flipped-suv
America needs to lock this guy up so he can stop making the police look bad. Plus he’s racist, cos the family he pulled out wasn’t black. I bet if they were black he’d have shot them instead (after headbutting the sidewalk a few times for dramatic effect of course)…
Excellent work, DB. More for the list. These people are so @#$$ed up it’s pitiful. And it’s throughout the BBC, no question.
Note to defenders of the indefensible, in case you still don’t get it: There doesn’t need to be an official conspiracy or memos handed down or directives from the top for there to be a Corporation-wide Narrative on a given issue. If they all think the same way, the institutional bias happens naturally.
Lord Hall’s management reshuffle won’t fix anything. The only possibility for real change is a purge.
“The only possibility for real change is a purge.”
Damn right. If Twitter is anything to go by the new breed is at least as left-wing as the old. The likes of Bolderson and Lustig may have departed to enjoy their pensions (and some extra pocket money as BBC paper reviewers) but the 20-somethings at the other end of the sausage factory share the same lefty worldview. It’s institutional.
Excellent post DB. It shows BBC staff at their very worst.
BBC management claims that staff leave personal beliefs at the door when they arrive at work. But nobody brazenly displaying such deep down prejudice and frankly bigoted attitudes can approach news stories with the open mind necessary for unbiased reporting.
I used to think the BBC could be reformed. It cannot, it is much too far gone.Far from correcting its mistakes – mistakes that the BBC itself acknowledges – it actually gets worse. The only solution is to close it down, or at the very least make it a voluntary subscription channel so that those willing to pay for it can do so, unless the others can get our news and entertainment elsewhere.
Agreed. See my reply above to David P.
BTW, the total number of Beeboids exposing their Left-wing ideology, violating official BBC social media use policy, and proving groupthink on a variety of issues currently stands at 55, plus two ex-BBC hacks. Well over 100 tweets, way too many to count now.
“The only possibility for real change is a purge.”
Damn right. If Twitter is anything to go by the new breed is at least as left-wing as the old. The likes of Bolderson and Lustig may have left to enjoy their pensions (and some extra pocket money as BBC paper reviewers) but the 20-somethings at the other end of the sausage factory share the same lefty worldview. It’s institutional.
I understand that George Zimmerman is in the process of suing MSNBC for their gross distortion in editing his call with the police dispatcher.
The smart thinking is that MSNBC will opt for a massive out of court settlement.
Perhaps Mr. Zimmerman should be made aware of the lies and distortions emanating from the BBC so that he can take action there.
You mean the gross, defamatory distortion the BBC pushed as well? Thanks to the BBC, Zimmerman has been defamed worldwide.
I love the sound of silence from defenders of the indefensible. Okay, lurking journalists, here’s where you come in and tell me I don’t know how news works.
It is NBC that is most in the firing line for being sued by George Zimmerman – for editing the phone call to suggest that it was GZ who set out to descrime Martin as black – when in fact he only said he looked black AFTER the phone despatcher asked him if he was black.
NBC are expected to have to pay big-time for this deliberate change to the tape. They had already sacked the people responsible ?
But all this was known many many months ago. Yet here we have a BBC clown repeating the well-known error – in June 2013. I would love to see that brought to court, it shows especial stupidity or spite to be repeating stuff already widely acknowledged and recognised to be false.
The NBC employees were fired within days of the broadcast. After initial denials and obfuscation, of course. Sounds familiar, somehow. The BBC has never reported it. Which means either they don’t know about – astounding, considering there are at least 100 of them working the US, never mind hundreds of others allegedly following the news – or they simply don’t care and ran the falsehood anyway because it suited their personal beliefs. Fake, but accurate.
The BBC once invited some extreme Left-wing activists to the BBC College of Journalism to advise on how to report on protests. In fairness, I think the CoJ needs to have someone come in and advise them on their handling of US issues.
Imagine for a moment that the Internet was not invented, and that your only source of information about the Zimmerman case was the BBC.
Scary isn’t it.
Just imagine when they get their way, and are able to block sites to the UK that don’t follow their guidelines, all ably assisted by the Labour party.
Won’t happen?….Really?
Both your scenario and Chop’s reply
are all too scary for being all too believable.
What else are they distorting to support their commonly held ideological (I would say theological) world view?
This is the whole point.
If a white blond kid had been on top of Zimmerman raining down blows on him and telling him he was going to kill him he would probably have done the same thing. The difference would have been that the BBC would have claimed that it was anti-Hispanic hate fanned by the GOP and their policies on immigration from Latin America.
Spot on Ralph.
The BBC is effectively undermining the jury system by questioning the verdict.
The whole point about jury trials is that 12 ordinary people make a dispassionate judgement, and everybody accepts it. That is how the jury system works.
Or 6 people. 6 ordinary people. 6, not 12, ordinary people. The point of the blogpost.
Sorry, I thought juries had 12 people on them. I made the same mistake as that other guy!
But then I don’t pretend to have an expert opinion on it, I just accept the verdict of the jury.
No worries. I was only messing.
I notice Laura Harmes didn’t abide by her own first tweet’s instruction to “forget race”.
Excellent work, DB – utterly damning. Not only the vile bias of the BBC, but also their sheer, unadulterated, bloody refusal to give us ALL the available facts – their shameful dereliction of their journalistic duty. ’12 ordinary people’ tweets Rea – Oh, how dare they! Allah forbid that ‘ordinary people’ should set the BBC an example of adherence to the facts, the reality, & not the warped left-liberal ‘narrative’. The younger crop of purblind beeboids appear to be even more subservient to groupthink. Reform of the BBC is now impossible – they’re too corrupt, too arrogant, too degenerate, too greedy. Privatisation is the only solution. Carve Aunty up.
I have 3 tweets from Robert Rea in reply to myself, which he has subsequently removed, not sure how I can post here:
Graham Evans @Dysgwr_Cymraeg
@robertrea so, a jury of 12 for zimmerman? Why let facts get in the way of your prejudices? – 25 Jul
Robert Rea @robertrea
Follow Follow
@Dysgwr_Cymraeg umm, I merely pointed out it was a jury (yes, of 6 – my mistake) that freed him rather than the judicial..
05:10 PM – 25 Jul 13
Graham Evans @Dysgwr_Cymraeg
@robertrea so, a jury of 12 for zimmerman? Why let facts get in the way of your prejudices? – 25 Jul
Robert Rea @robertrea
Follow Follow
@Dysgwr_Cymraeg ..system, which did actually put him on trial. For what it’s worth, I think the jury made a horrendous mistake and that..
05:11 PM – 25 Jul 13
Graham Evans @Dysgwr_Cymraeg
@robertrea so, a jury of 12 for zimmerman? Why let facts get in the way of your prejudices? – 25 Jul
Robert Rea @robertrea
Follow Follow
@Dysgwr_Cymraeg ..the law under which his defence was conducted is dangerous. I’m not sure which way you think that makes me prejudiced..
“I think the jury made a horrendous mistake and that… the law under which his defence was conducted is dangerous. I’m not sure which way you think that makes me prejudiced.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Not surprised he deleted those tweets.
You didn’t get the embed codes before he deleted those tweets by any chance?
I only have the records of the tweets in my email inbox, from which I copied and pasted. I only knew they were removed when i tried to reply to one.
Sorry. i am a bit useless of twitter.
But they must still exist somewhere?
I can forward the e-mails to you if it helps?
No, it’s OK. It’s not like he’s denying he sent the deleted tweets.
For future reference – click on “More” and copy the “Embed tweet” code.
Like this?
And this?
And this?m
BTW, the embed code can be found under the “More” link below the tweet.
Heh. He’s not doing himself any favours is he?
It’s the attitude that comes with being untouchable, unsackable, and right every time.
“..the law under which his defence was conducted is dangerous. I’m not sure which way you think that makes me prejudiced.. ”
I assume she means the “stand your ground” law?
So, what was Zimmerman supposed to do, as blows rained down on him, as his head was repeatedly smashed into the concrete….couldn’t exactly run away, could he?
As it happens, he wasn’t actually “Standing his ground” at all….he was lying on the ground…Pinned down, and being savagely beaten by a racist thug.
Maybe, because Martin was a sweet, angelic black boy, Mr Zimmerman should have handed him his gun to finish the job?
What happened to the brains at the BBC?…did I miss it as they all flew off to the planet “Libturd”?
I assume
shehe means the “stand your ground” law?Yes, that’s what he means. The laugh is that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law played no part in the trial. Zimmerman relied solely an old fashioned claim of self defence. The Beeboids find this utterly confusing and keep banging on about SYG law..
The Sandford police originally brought up SYG, then stopped talking about it as soon as they realized that the physical altercation meant it was irrelevant and the case was down to plain old self defense.
Then the biased judge mentioned it in her instructions to the jury, which brought it back into the conversation. Even so, anyone who says that SYG is relevant to the case is either misinformed or in denial.
Plus, maybe somebody should tell these BBC geniuses that California, New York, Illinois, and a bunch of other States have their own version of the same law. Oh, and it helps black people more than whites. Is that what he meant by “dangerous”?
I presume Zimmerman was meant to follow in the footsteps of Theo van Gogh who is reported to have begged for mercy by saying to his attacker “Can’t we talk about this?”
Of course most of us know how that worked out for him.
Great stuff, Dysgwr. The man has beclowned himself. “was going to say more but realised it was pointless”? LOL.
Obviously this professional journalist is looking down on you with disdain. He thinks he’s dealing with a moron, no point in continuing debate. The arrogance of Beeboids never fails to disappoint.
Agreed
Duhhhh..
Perhaps send this arrogant sounding Beeb chap a link to these pages and ask him to defend Travon and the BBC’s output on here? Pigs might fly and all that but if he is so sure of himself……
I agree, splendid stuff Dysqwr…guess he gave up when none of his fellow libs came running to his aid.
“I think the jury made a horrendous mistake and that… the law under which his defence was conducted is dangerous. I’m not sure which way you think that makes me prejudiced.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Not surprised he deleted those tweets.
Its all Thatcher’s fault
The miserabilis obviously doesn’t know that there was a physical altercation between the two. Is he suggesting that Zimmerman wouldn’t have shot a white boy who was beating the sh!t out of him, telling him he was going to die, and reached for his gun?
Like Dave P said upthread, where ARE the Cherry Vultures on this one?
I guess this means the BBC really is bang to rights.
Some of the issues in this case might have been legally complex but the number of people on the jury isn’t one of them. The Beeboids got caught doing what the BBC always does. They claimed to be reporting the case, but their total lack of familiarity with the basic facts shows that they had no actual interest in it except as an excuse to wheel out their prejudices.
He’s still tweeting excuses.
Has the idiot figured out yet that Stand Your Ground is irrelevant? Does he know who hit first? Does he know when the fatal shot occurred?
He’s read all he needs to know in uk newspapers. I wonder which ones?
Bets on err….?
This was a major trial, known to be very contentious.
It appears that the BBC did not have a single soul with a watching brief on the trial. All those journalists in the US – and not a single one of them reporting to BBC colleagues the FACTS as they emerged in court over a long trial.
But then the BBC does not need facts. It gets by very nicely on its prejudices.
No, the BBC did have somebody assigned to watch the trial: David Willis. He’s the one who lied on air about Zimmerman tackling Martin and how there was no eyewitness to the fight.
But that is what I mean, David. NO-ONE at the BBC was reporting the facts as they emerged at the trial !
And nowhere did the BBC give links to any of the stunning evidence. Yet you could go back right now to blogs like LegalInsurrection and find every important bit of video of the trial. Unpaid bloggers were by far the best source of daily information, unless one tuned in to live coverage.
Among the BBC filed reports and the various tweets DB has shown us – I feel sure there are grounds for legal action by Zimmerman’s lawyers. And if the case were brought in the UK the odds for winning substantial damages would be good ? It was known a year ago that the FBI investigation had found nil reason to regard Zimmerman as a racist – amd lots of reasons showing he hawas helpful to black people. Sometimes there is no alternative to legal action.
Stefan Molyneux – The Truth About George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin
All very interesting, started great, and really nailed home all the points about the case itself….can’t be faulted….think he drifted a little towards the end though, still, perhaps our friend Robert Rea should be sent a link to this….not that he’ll take any notice like.
‘BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast Show producer Laura Harmes:
“So sad at Trayvon Martin verdict. Forget race, how can it be right that an unarmed boy gets pursued and shot dead and his killer walks free?”………
……” My point was look at the basic facts of the case. A man killing an innocent boy.”‘
Just let that sink in for a moment. This is the woman appointed by the BBC to produce the breakfast show of one of their leading radio stations.
Proof that on the BBC, the news is brought to you by somebody who is at best too lazy to acquaint herself with the facts, and at worst just blind ignorant.
She is just another feminist trying to get back at her father for the he treated her as a child.
http://legalinsurrection.com
I found this site to be most informative before, during & after the trial.
You read these US-relocated “BBC journalists” tweets, profiles, blogs, they are having the time of their lives! They are in the prime of glittering BBC careers. Big salaries, expenses, How dare you suggest they are utterly useless frauds simply repeating other “journalists” liberal talking points, not journalists at all.
We are BBC if you please. We are BBC if you don’t please The BBC echo chamber rules.
There isn’t an attack of Irritable Troll Syndrome on this thread. I wonder why?
“George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder” – Juror
“You can’t put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty,”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/07/25/juror_b29_mandy_zimmerman_juror_tells_abc_that_george_zimmerman_got_away.html
Worth reading the whole thing and not just the misleading headline, don’t you think? The juror says they wanted to convict Zimmerman based on pure emotion, but the facts wouldn’t let them. Sane people generally believe that’s how the system should work. It was a difficult thing to do, but they did the right thing. If you feel someone should go to jail purely to assuage the sins of the fathers, simply because it feels good and not because the evidence dictates it, then I’d suggest you need to reexamine your conscience.
The way this story is being bandied around is proof that anyone who still insists that Zimmerman shot a child in cold blood simply for being black is purposely denying the facts and doesn’t have the integrity or decency of those jurors.
In any case, at least by trying to debate the case itself you don’t have to try and defend the BBC’s biased reporting on the story.
There was a case probably 15 years ago in London were some nut took the Neigbourhood watch to extreme and started wandering about hoping to be mugged. And behold he was and in the ensuing punchup, his attacker died of stab wounds from his knife.
The Vigilate was up for manslaughter but was found not guilty. I can’t find any online references as I suspect it was before newspapers put their stories online.
Clearly, like Zimmerman, he was a bit over zealous in his actions, however when it comes to any serious crime it has to be ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Neither men could be convicted on that basis. Whilst their behaviour may be provocative, it doesn’t justify a the resulting attacks.
Had Zimmerman been charged on day one I suspect this case, like the Blackheath one, would have gone unnoticed.
In the report highlighted above, the juror (B29) appears to state….
“As much as we were trying to find this man guilty … ”
I am sorry – but WTF ? A jury is there to decide whether, on the facts presented to them, and within the law as it stands within that country, the accused is guilty of any crime, beyond any reasonable doubt. If they cannot do that, then the person is innocent of the crime of which they have been accused. No ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’, no ‘maybes’.
It is not the job of the Jury to pick a verdict they quite like, and then to seek any way possible to justify that choice.
In the end, the juror had to admit that there was no way that the jury could have found Zimmerman guilty. Period.
And anyone jumping on this juror’s comments as anything remotely like proof of guilt needs to be aware of the prejudice shown by this juror, and the prejudice they themselves are showing by doing so.
‘“As much as we were trying to find this man guilty … ”
—
Give her a mic, access to an edit suite and call it ‘analysis’, and she could be a BBC ‘reporter’.
Well knock me down with a feather. It seems the media has spun ABC’s interview with juror Maddy to fit its anti-Zimmerman agenda:
The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth. Nightline shows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”
You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/526704_10201813461561002_1642989211_n.jpg
On PM tonight, the BBC were still pushing the notion that Zimmerman quite simply walked up to a black youth and shot him in cold blood. Nowhere on the BBC have I heard a single comment that maybe Zimmerman was acting in self defence. Why not? Judge jury and hangman that is what the BBC is just so it can fit with their narrative. Dreadful bias, truly truly dreadful.
On the news they claimed Trayvon was involved in a “minor scuffle” with Zimmerman. I suppose this is the BBC’s idea of a “minor scuffle”.
I am not sure you have quite grasped the concept of a troll.
In other words you are contradicting yourself.
You say that there are no trolls on this thread because it is well researched with no straw men, but now you are saying that you think that articulating an alternative opinion is not to behave like a troll.
Maybe you ought to sort out what you are saying before you get into your pulpit.
‘Your definition may well differ from mine’
—
No bother, but surely more than likely that, outside of hive minds, such definitions and interpretations will indeed differ.
What has suited you this time is deemed ‘acceptable’ by you, which is great, but surely the very definition of varying opinion when others are involved is that it in turn can lead to debate. A privilege offered by the site owners, which I here am happy to gratefully embrace without evident permissions.
Quite why the site owners have to post the disclaimer you require… on a forum… rather suggests that, beyond occasional readership, your motivations as a contributor may have something more behind it.
Maybe worth posting such a statement on a BBC HYS thread when the house rule mods are taking out anything they deem critical of the author, or OT, and see what response you get.
Presuming it makes it up and/or does not get modded. Then it will simply remain to fester anonymously.
Unless you don’t feel the BBC hosts any interactive exchanges that claim to foster political debate?
Despite the prosecution’s claim the Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black, Maddy said the case was never about race to her, although she didn’t want to speak for her fellow jurors.
Not about race, juror Maddy? It’s as plain as a Beeboid’s tweet that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black.
Bloody great research effort DB.
Why not pass them to Tony Hall and ask what he intends to do about it by way of balance?
(Perhaps give Bill Whittle and Larry Elder some air time. I’d never heard of them or seen them on the BBC or Sky?)
Unlikely I know.
What is the BBC License fee minus the cost of funding these liberal bigots and News Division liars in breach of their duty of impartiality?
My other half still watches the BBC drama and entertainment output but I don’t see why a blanket payment should require me to pay to be lied to, and foot Lord Hall and Chris Pattens lunch bill.
Tory Culture and Media Secretary Maria Miller where are you? Useless LSE-educated bint.