Saturday 9 January 2016

After Cologne

Nothing shows the crazy world we're living in than the official response to the waves of sex attacks in German cities on New Year's Eve by 'Arab and North African' gangs. It was as if the German authorities were re-playing, on fast forward, everything that happened in slow motion in places like Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and other British towns and cities, and for exactly the same reasons.

As for the behaviour of the media: At first they told us nothing. Then, after social media sites and Breitbart began reporting what had happened, they began reporting it - four to five days after it had happened. (One German TV station at least had the decency to apologise for failing to report it earlier.)

They then appeared to play catch-up whilst still seeming to try to cling to the hope that the 'Arab and North African' men weren't recent asylum seekers/refugees.

BBC reports, for a day or two, all stressed (without questioning or further investigation) statements from German officials saying that there was no evidence of such a link, just as they used to do when the issue of race or religion (specifically the religion of Islam) arose in the wake of Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, etc. They also cited commenters calling for people not to jump to conclusions. Their  main online report on the story on 5th January did cite one policeman saying that eight detained suspects were asylum seekers but that was in paragraph 25/27 of the article (for some reason) and the following paragraph 26 then tried to counter it by repeating official cautioning comments.

The BBC's main online 'explainer' piece by Jasmine Coleman on 6th January waited 9 paragraphs before mentioning that the young men were 'of North African or Arab appearance', focusing initially instead on the area of Cologne's notoriety as a crime hotspot. Some 13 paragraphs later she returned to the question of the perpetrators saying that anti-immigration campaigners had "seized on" the incident and that some had criticised the media before quoting a German official cautioning against making the link to refugees and, in a very strong echo of the BBC's coverage of Rotherham, Rochdale et al, then cited one expert:
Meanwhile experts stress that sexual violence is an issue for people of all ethnic origins. 
Figures show the majority of people carrying out sex attacks in Germany do not come from an immigrant background. In two-thirds of cases, the perpetrator is known to the victim, Ms Kopetzky says.
As with the UK's problem with grooming gangs, such points miss the point. They ignore the specific nature of the crimes and they 'forget' about considering the statistics proportionally. Yes, most sex attacks in the UK and Germany are carried out by non-immigrant people and most perpetrators are known to the victims, but the UK is well over 80% non-immigrant yet the vast majority of those convicted of being part of paedophile grooming gang members were from an immigrant, Muslim background - i.e. a vastly disproportionate number - and they targeted non-immigrant (ie white) children, just as the mob in Germany targeted non-immigrant (ie white) women.

Then came the news that the bulk of those arrested so far have indeed been asylum seekers. and the news that four young, male Syrian refugees had gang-raped two girls aged 14 and 15 in a small southern German town. The BBC's main online article reporting this on 8th January was unusually forthcoming (though the ages of the girls wasn't given, only being mentioned in a later, separate article): 
Germany must contemplate deporting foreigners convicted of crimes following the Cologne sex attacks, Chancellor Angela Merkel says.
She said "clear signals" had to be sent to those not prepared to abide by German law.
Gangs of men described as of North African and Arab appearance were reported to be behind the attacks.
Police also received reports of sexual attacks in cities in Finland, Austria and Switzerland on New Year's Eve.
Meanwhile, four young Syrians are being held over the suspected gang rape of two teenage girls in the southern German town of Weil am Rhein on the same night, according to German media.
Last night's News at Six on BBC also had Jenny Hill saying as much, albeit tentatively:
The authorities now admit that some of the men who attacked [the women] may have been asylum seekers.
Her report marked something of a step backwards. She featured a Yazidi refugee from Iraq "who [she said] fears reprisals", adding that "anti-refugee violence is already on the increase". He denounced the perpetrators as newly-arrived and not representative of other refugees like him (which in his case, being a Yazidi, is likely to be true at least, most of the rest being Muslim). She then featured two young German woman as vox pops (both of whom looked, unless my eyes deceived me, as if they might also come from an immigrant background):

...both of whom downplayed the dangers, saying if you were careful, had "a trusting heart" and "saw these as single incidences" you should be OK - prompting the obvious question: Were they representative? Or were they simply the ones saying what the BBC reporter wanted to hear? 

Those are just some initial impressions on the BBC's reporting in recent days. Do they match yours, or not?


  1. Maybe they didn't have time to locate an interview a more representative spread of local sentiment? Or something. My trusting heart suggests this is so what is the likely explanation. No matter how many multiple times it happens.

  2. It's getting to the point that it should be a law that like advertisers they have to state the number of people asked and ask them specific questions with yes no answers, and then provide the stats with the vox pops to demonstrate impartiality.

  3. At around 8:45 this morning someone (from Univ of Kent) on R4 was suggesting that the perpetrators in Cologne were marginalised - i.e. victims.

    1. Yes, and how many times did she used the words "marginalised" and "marginal"? I lost count.

      And, having looked at China and India, she felt confident to assert that the attacks in Germany had nothing to do with religion or culture. It was all down to her 'marginalised men' out side of 'societal norms' theory.

  4. Here was my comment on an earlier post:

    "Well it was covered on Newsnight. Katie Razzell - one of the prime practitioners of the "warm and cuddly" school of pro-migration propaganda was obliged to compile the report. So what did she do?
    She drafted in two pro-migration spokespeople (one a Muslim playing the usual victim card)!!! The report of course was replete with references to the non-existent condition of Islamophobia placed closely to references to "racism". Anyone would have thought the report was about persecution of Muslims!

    Laughingly, the BBC blamed the German media for failure to promptly report the attacks. This despite the fact that the BBC forks out for a Berlin Correspondent (Jenny Hill - where was she?).

    So to the studio discussion. Who would the BBC choose to interview? Maybe a migration sceptic from the Christian Social Union, or a feminist perhaps? No, the BBC played the "balanced programme" card of having a far right representative (an AFD MEP). Strangely, for once, Evan Davis didn't seek to interrupt much or pose any difficult questions. Odd - unless the idea was to continue the message set out in the Razzell report i.e. only far right politicians support controlled migration."

    1. Yes, Katie Razzell's report was everything you'd expect from her on this issue.

      When she said, "It's fed conspiracy theories about media bias towards refugees" about German media reporting, it was very hard not to raise an eyebrow or two.

      Concerns about media bias on this issue, especially last year, have never been just conspiracy theories and when she herself followed that comment by getting a German media analyst on to give a sympathetic take on the media's plight and throwing terms like 'Islamophobia', 'Islamophobic' and 'right-wing' around in the process, and then went on to use just one 'vox pop' - a German woman who denounced people who are "manipulating" the story to criticise refugees and Muslims, implying such people are racists - and then when she backed up that woman by saying that we should expect "more of the same", then it's not really much of a conspiracy theory to say that she was biased in this report.

      She was just biased, plain and simple.

    2. A shame really, as she otherwise has all the makings of a good reporter. It's just everything I've heard from her is completely skewed towards backing migration. I recall a recent report where she reported in loving detail on the post-migration story of a Syrian family. In one part the family indicated they walked out of a Christmas carol concert in Germany they had been invited to by refugee helpers because they found it boring and uninspiring. She treated this in a very light-hearted fashion.

      I think I would have asked "Why didn't you stay? You accepted the invitation to attend. Is it really so difficult to stay to the end, given how much Germans have done for you?"

      But no, it was just one big joke. To me it was indicative of a family who really didn't want to integrate (and this of course was a hand picked family - not the more common single young men - who spoke pretty good English).

  5. So it's gone like this:

    1. It did not happen, so we are not reporting it.

    2. Something happened, we know not what.

    3. Something happened, but it was mostly the usual criminal stuff - you know bag snatching and the like.
    There is no evidence as to the background of the perpetrators.

    4. OK, something happened and it might have involved sexual assault but that wasn't the prime motive and anyway it's still unclear about the background of the perpetrators although they might have been North African or Arab.

    5. OK, something happened, and it shouldn't have and we'll tell you a bit about what went on, but let's not assume the perpetrators were asylum seekers.

    6. OK, some of them were asylum seekers, but Mrs Merkel will deport them so that's all right, isn't it? Anyway, the perpetrators come from a marginalised group. What do you expect - and our attention should be on the danger of a "backlash".

    Level 6 is about as far as the BBC are willing to go. They are unwilling to admit the vast majority of perpetrators were Muslim and migrants to Germany. They are unwilling to admit (as testified by the women) that the main point of the crimes was assault and humiliation (smart phones were left alone though they could easily have been taken). They (and the rest of the MSM) also seem unwilling to admit that fireworks were being shot at the Cathedral as well. I don't think that was entirely random. They also seem unwilling to admit this is a Europe-wide problem.

  6. It all makes sense when your mindset mandates that "everyone is equal". To explain success and failure, you then simply decide that the successful *must* have exploited the failed.

    And so that constantly leads you to champion the failed and the bad (Muslim society) and demonise the successful and the good (Western democracy).

    It's a hard pull for the BBC to portray these Muslim sex attackers as "victims", and the German girls as "oppressors", but they'll get there in the end.

  7. On 9th Jan at 10.17pm on BBC rolling news channel the coverage of Pergida demos - Vox pops with 2 pro-immigration german females closing with the reporter highlighting their fears of a backlash given that "it was only one place and one night". The BBC know that it was more than just Cologne attacked that night, why is their reporter allowed to misrepresent that.

    Also they have stuck to "around 100 women" line though many other reports now give the figures at around 379.

    It's like liberal top-trumps. The refugees trump women's rights to avoid accusations of "racism". If nearly 400 women had been attacked en masse by poor white men they would not be citing their "difficult backgrounds" as an excuse, they would be looking at our society and asking how did we breed such monsters. It's disgusting to women and racist in itself, to make these excuses for assault and rape.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.