Saturday, 19 March 2016

Protecting The Narrative….

A mob of schoolgirls hurled racist insults at a Muslim shop worker and tore a hijab from her head in shocking town-centre abuse.
The crucial words here being ‘allegedly’…
Police officers attended the shop but the group had left and there was no CCTV footage to help identify those involved.
That’s handy, eh? The comments are, as always, rather enlightening.
Mohwa Sanonce
Shouldn't the headline have used the word 'allegedly' before 'tear off Muslim worker's hijab'? There's no actual proof that it was in fact torn off is there? Shoddy, sensationalist reporting indeed.
Quite! Which brings the immediate virtue signalling response now expected of keyboard SJWs:
ResidentTony >Mohwa Sanonce
So if they didn't actually tear it right off, everything is just fine and dandy?
*sighs* But it seems that the commenters are made of sterner stuff than usual, and one in particular isn’t giving up:
Mohwa Sanonce >ResidentTony
That wasn't what I said - but why lie or sensationalise the headline? It's this kind of wind up reporting that 'outrages' a certain 'community' - who let's face it, get 'outraged' over the slightest thing - and the bleeding hearts. Take away this ALLEGED act of (repeatedly apparently) tearing off a hijab and the also ALLEGED 'racism' and what have you got? Chav kids doing what chav kids do wherever they are - and no more, no less. Sure, they're little bastards and need to be put firmly in their place, but it puts a whole different spin on the story does it not? How boring it would be to read 'Schoolgirl mob swear and steal from Sutton Poundland store'...much better and inflammatory isn't it to have 'Schoolgirl mob tear off Muslim worker's hijab and hurl racist abuse in Sutton Poundland store'?
And we’re off! *settles in with popcorn*
ResidentTony >Mohwa Sanonce
Your first paragraph is not very clear, but I agree that exaggerating the story (IF and I repeat IF that has happened) is obviously problematic, but equally a seeming lack of sympathy for the victim is also problematic. However you cut it, something bad has occurred - it is just a question of how bad. Surely you don't have to be what you would disparagingly call a bleeding heart to recognise that. Surely any decent person would. At the end of the day, you are basically calling the shop worker - and the other staff who were quoted - liars. Or you are calling Mr Anglesey a liar. Is racism so very, very rare that you just *can't* believe it when it happens?! Sometimes when something looks bad it actually IS bad!
Classic right out of the SJW playbook – insinuate that questioning something is tantamount to approving of it, and that failure to simply accept someone’s claim is an accusation of lying.

By now, others are smelling a rat:
Many inconsistencies in this story. "Police attended the shop" yet there was no police record of the abuse. Also, should the Sutton Guardian be naming a school with no verification, and when the incident was on a Sunday when the children would not have been in school uniform? This sounds like it was an awful incident, but please get your facts straight!
Which draws some of the fire from poor Mohwa…
I am not suggesting that the incident didn't happen. I am suggesting that this would have been better handled if an official complaint had been made to the police each time a theft or racist abuse occurred. Also, what can the school do if they are not informed by the shop owners or the police? Systems are in place to deal with crimes such as this, but they need to be actioned correctly.
Who could possibly argue with that?
Cheam Hall
CCTV is all over the place in Sutton . Very good equipment I believe. Surely the whoever monitors this (police or civilians working for the Police) would notice a 20 to 30 strong gang of girls in the high street all going into one shop? That should immediately ring bells with trained observers. I thought all footage is kept for a certain period as well. That said, why does a company like Poundland not have useable CCTV inside the shop ? even small independamnt shops do these days. If this was the case we would not be debating at what actually occurred.
A damned good point. ‘Resident Tony’ has been away to elicit support, meanwhile, and comes back with gushing praise for….the ‘Daily Mail’..?!?
I thought I'd check what those commenting about this story in the right wing press were saying. Unlike here where most of you are unsympathetic and trying to pretend nothing much happened, many (if not all admittedly) commentators in the right wing Daily Mail were horrified and sympathetic. In other words they had normal human reactions. This puts most of you in an even worse light. Here is one typical comment from the Mail (hardly a bastion of "left wing luvvies" or "bleeding hearts") which got five times as many up votes as down votes: "Disgusting. Poor woman. This is what happens when you stand up to ignorance and foolishness. 14 year olds are old enough to know what they are doing."
I bet you never expected that, reader, did you?
Mohwa Sanonce >ResidentTony
I thought I'd check it too. Nowhere in the 'Mail' article is there any proof of what happened, and there is also no mention of the shop staff as there is here. The 'Mail' actually has this to open the story with; "A Muslim woman claimed today that her hijab was ripped from her head by a mob of schoolchildren as she tried to stop them stealing from Poundland." Note the use of the word 'claimed'. The only difference between the majority of the comments in the 'Mail' and the bulk of the comments here is that the 'Mail' readers have taken this woman's story as gospel, rather than ask is there any proof. The 'Mail' seem to have just lifted the story here and condensed it somewhat, and guess what...they've kept the line that states; "Sutton Police said it had NO RECORD of the abuse." (My capitals) You're flogging a dead horse sunshine.
I think Mohwa’s well ahead on points here, but why not go for a KO?
Mohwa Sanonce >ResidentTony
A 'normal human reaction'? Oh leave off! Only when it suits your agenda...if you'd picked an article where say for example a white woman had been (allegedly) attacked and racially abused by a mob of non whites, and the comments in the 'Mail' would have been ones of anger at the non white attackers - a 'normal human reaction' - you and your kind would have been slagging them off as thick, racist morons with the sanctimonious attitude you love so much. You would have been labelling them as right wing trash, ready to condemn without any tangible proof. However, as it's a Muslim woman here, bleating about this 'racist' attack - that nobody else saw - you just take it is as fact, and that those of us who question her 'allegations' of abuse (abuse that the police have no record of don't forget), are all nasty, racist Islamophobes (whatever an 'Islamophobe' is). Anyway, all that said, time will tell. There was similar outcry by the bleeding heart brigade about an 'attack' on a Muslim female by one Cinnamon Heathcote-Drury (google her and the case) until the defendant was found not guilty of racially aggravated assault by a court and the bleeding hearts were proved wrong! Let it go...
BOOM! I salute your indefatigability, Mohwa.


Nice Mr Pierrepoint said...

'Problematic' - always a reliable indicator of a hand-wringing tosser.

James Higham said...

Would be interesting seeing a mob of schoolgirls raping a jihadi. No actually, it wouldn't be interesting.

JuliaM said...