This is seriously getting out of hand...
One of the top news stories of the day is the conviction of a 14-year old schoolboy for stabbing a black supply teacher, Vincent Uzomah, in what everyone agrees was a racist attack.
The BBC News website's article contains the following striking passage:
Speaking outside court, Mr Uzomah said: "As a Christian, I have forgiven this boy who has inflicted this trauma and pain on to me and my family.
"It was, however, important for the law to run its course and for a strong message to be sent out, especially to kids of similar tendencies, that violence is never acceptable.
"Our prayer for him is that he will make use of the opportunities and support that will be provided to him, to become a changed person who will make a positive contribution to society."
That is testament to the Christian spirit of Mr Uzomah.
As for the boy, other than him posting racist tweets about his attack (and various cretins 'liking' his boasts about it on Facebook), the BBC gave us no more information (I presumed, doubtless naively, for legal reasons).
Turn to Sky News's account, however, and you learn a lot more about the story - and about the boy.
You learn, for starters, that the boy "muttered the words b****** and n***** before he knifed" Mr Uzomah.
You also learn what the judge thought was the reason for the attack - and something about the boy's background:
Judge Durham Hall accepted that the attack was racially motivated and that the boy - from a Pakistani background - could not handle being disciplined by a black man.
To say that the BBC News website only gave us half the story today would be an understatement.
Though it would be wrong to regress into hyperbole, this clearly is proof of the BBC censoring important parts of a news story, isn't it?
Can anyone deny that the BBC is significantly whitewashing this story?
Given that the BBC isn't exactly shy about mentioning ethnicity when it comes, say, to event in U.S. cities like Ferguson, Missouri, why is it so shy about mentioning the ethnicity of the perpetrator here in the UK in a story specifically about racial hatred?
Will anyone defend the BBC for behaving like this here (on the grounds of maintaining 'social cohesion' perhaps)?
Given that the BBC isn't exactly shy about mentioning ethnicity when it comes, say, to event in U.S. cities like Ferguson, Missouri, why is it so shy about mentioning the ethnicity of the perpetrator here in the UK in a story specifically about racial hatred?
Will anyone defend the BBC for behaving like this here (on the grounds of maintaining 'social cohesion' perhaps)?
I don't know about you though, but I think this is absolutely clear-cut evidence of BBC bias.
The BBC appears to be trying to pull the wool over its audience's eyes - and doing so for purely 'politically correct' (i.e. ideological) reasons.
The BBC appears to be trying to pull the wool over its audience's eyes - and doing so for purely 'politically correct' (i.e. ideological) reasons.
Oh its the BBC Craig!
ReplyDeleteLike the IKEA story-if the BBC don`t trump up the name of the accused, or won`t reveal anything about eye-witness accounts until "further editorial input"-chances are(and I hate to say it)that it`ll be Muslims first in my identity parade.
The BBC have done this for too long now-no wonder we all mistrust them, and will risk community cohesion due to the BBC track record in removing any fingerprint evidence that Islam leaves at its many crimes.
The BBC really is a false friend to Islam, no matter how much the two sides seem to require each others compliance and taqqiya.
"Will anyone defend the BBC for behaving like this here (on the grounds of maintaining 'social cohesion' perhaps)?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
(If the BBC are doing it for that reason, I actually think it will acieve the opposite effect.)
The third sentence of the article states 'There was "clear evidence" he attacked Mr Uzomah because he was black, the city's crown court heard.' And 'He racially abused Mr Uzomah before stabbing him in the stomach with a kitchen knife he had brought to school, the court heard.' Again, '..and freely referred to him by the epithet beginning with the letter n, including saying it in anger just before he attacked him," he said.' Yet this post implies that the motivation was not mentioned. Craig must be trying to pull the wool over the audience's eyes for ideological reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC is in meltdown and becoming a total parody of itself. This is all good for those of us who want to get rid of this verminous cancer forever !
ReplyDeleteMaybe Jo Brand can be called as an expert witness on all this?
ReplyDeleteYep - this is one of the most striking cases of bias to feature in recent months. Outrageous.
ReplyDeleteThinking about it some more...who or what are they (the BBC) protecting? Answer: The Pakistani community/Islam. Why? Because they have to in order to protect the wider PC project - a particular world view that states all cultures and religions are of equal validity and which seeks to identify race (genetic identity) with culture (an oddly racist idea, whereas we can see that - for example - Christian Arabs don't behave like Muslim Arabs and Christian Filiponos don't behave like Muslim Filipinos.
ReplyDelete