This is the whole text of a BBC report published forty minutes ago:
Taxi driver victim of ‘unprovoked, racist attack’
Police are appealing for information about a racially-motivated attack on a taxi driver in Belfast.
Two men and a woman approached the taxi driver on Talbot Street at about 23:10 BST on Saturday and, after being refused a lift, they became aggressive and used racial slurs.
The taxi driver, who is in his 30s, was spat at and struck by one of the men and he hit the ground and lost consciousness. As he got back up, he was hit by a second man.
The three people then made off on foot in the direction of the city centre.
‘Unprovoked attack’
Inspt Moutray from the Police Service of Northern Ireland ( PSNI) described it as an “unprovoked attack, which is being treated as a racially-motivated hate crime”.
“There is no place for hate, racism or violence in our communities, and everyone has the right to feel safe and treated with dignity and respect,” the officer said.
“The area was fairly busy at the time, as would be expected for a Saturday evening, and we’d ask anyone who witnessed this assault to get in touch.
“The woman is described as wearing a black dress, while both men are described as being of muscular build and were wearing a white shirt and red T-shirt.”
I do not know if the decision to hide the race of the victim and the suspects was taken by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the BBC, or both. Whoever it was, they cannot care very much about actually catching the perpetrators. Do they seriously think that someone reading the above who was in the area at the relevant time would have their memory jogged by mention of the colour of the woman’s dress or the men’s shirts? For any crime at all, giving a description of a suspect that leaves out their skin colour is unlikely to be productive in prompting witnesses to come forward. When the crime is a a racial attack such playacting becomes even more outrageous.
Related post: It’s not like anyone needs to know what a killer still at large looks like
As a retired Peace Officer here in the United States; the reason for the discrepancy with normal police procedure seems obvious. It is an example of the British deliberate lack of law enforcement against crimes committed by your hostile foreign invaders. Just as your nobility used to functionally be above the law, so are your invaders. [Does that make them your new ruling nobility?]
Subotai Bahadur
Natalie, maybe that’s the main bit of info they left out of their statements, that they really do not want to catch the perps! I guess that tells us what race they are, as Subotai has already noted.
I think the BBC cut short the quote from PSNI. But I found the full quote, here:
“…unprovoked attack, which is being treated as a racially-motivated hate crime. There is no place for hate, racism or violence in our communities, and everyone has the right to feel safe and treated with dignity and respect. The area was fairly busy at the time, as would be expected for a Saturday evening, and we’d ask anyone who witnessed this assault to get in touch. The woman is described as wearing a black dress, while both men are described as being of muscular build and were wearing a white shirt and red T-shirt…”
And the missing bit: “We are not providing more information at this time because we’d prefer arresting native born Brits, especially if they are white.”
Rare honesty from the UK cops!
I swear all of the above is absolutely true…in Minecraft!
Well, the fact that the police are willing to assert it was racially motivated is a pretty good clue.
In once sane Hampshire (a country in southern England) the police came upon an 18 year old finance student (a “white” person) – bleeding to death after being stabbed four times.
The police arrested the young finance student – as he bled to death, because his attacker (a brown skin tone person of the Sikh faith) falsely claimed the student had said something “racist”.
By the way, the attacker was allowed to carry a knife because of his religion (there is a provision in British “law” on this matter) – the idea that everyone should be allowed to carry weapons for the defense of themselves and others (the definition of a free person in both Classical, Ancient Greek and Republican Roman, and old Germanic law – and British law at least up to the First World War) is rejected in modern Britain, but if someone is from certain ethnic groups they are allowed to carry weapons.
For example, if a group of Muslims carry weapons in the street – the police will tend not to arrest them, although they may advise them to put the weapons in a local Mosque – so they are not visible in daylight.
The permission that Sikhs are given to carry a Kirpan, the small ceremonial knife, is a red herring here- that was not the murder weapon.
A 12″ knife is hardly “small.” 😉
In my (new) religion, I am required to carry a semi-auto 9mm suppressed pistol. It’s a sacrament. It brings bad people closer to God.
bobby b…gimme that old time religion!
Glad to see this reminder from Paul, but i’d like to add that bearing arms was only one criterion of freedom.
Another criterion was, obviously, being able to use them.
Beyond that, a free man (and very few women were able to defend themselves before the introduction of handguns) was supposed to have means of sustenance: land and/or cattle. Although a fishing boat could be an acceptable substitute.
And a free man was supposed to have some knowledge of customary law, and be able to defend himself verbally, as well as physically. This was true even in illiterate, uncivilized (ie no towns or even villages) Viking-age Iceland.
SG:
So, really, they wanted people with brains and ambition and productive capacity, but you can’t measure those things directly, so they used land and cattle and boats – achieved property – as proxy measurements.
Which was good, but then not good – inherited land and cattle and boats suddenly implied brains and ambition and productive capacity, which is decidedly not the case.
Goodart’s Law – when a metric becomes the objective, it’s no longer a good metric. It’s always still just a proxy for a deeper quality, and can be spoofed. The entire “let the landed gentry run society” thing is the result of a spoof.
JuliaM I am NOT against Sikhs being allowed to carry knives (which were always a weapon – that is why they were traditionally carried, so “lions” could defend themselves, and others, against Muslims), but I am against other people being treated as serfs, indeed as lower than serfs – as even a serf could carry such a thing. Indeed the deadly English infantry “Bill” (Billhook) is just a modified farm tool – a serf, if they were angry enough, could kill a knight – if they really wanted to.
As for the vote……
One point is that is often missed is that those boroughs where most men (now women – although female rate payers could vote for local councils and Poor Law Guardians under the Acts of 1835 and 1834) had the vote before the Act of 1832 (the so called “Pot Walloper” boroughs – when anyone who had a pot to put on the fire could vote) returned Members of the House of Commons that were much the same as other other Members of the House of Commons.
Bobby:
That was more or less the way i used to think.
But, actually, that is not the point.
The point is that your “brains and ambition and productive capacity” did not matter as much as your estate (no matter how it was achieved) and ability to defend yourself (verbally and physically) — not in a pre-capitalist society.
Speaking for myself, i am happy to live in a capitalist society. (Using the word “capitalist” loosely, here.)
But i think it important to understand the Greco-Roman-Germanic concept of freedom.