Tuesday, July 16, 2013

George Zimmerman and the BBC's black-and-white blindness

From Brother Ivo:

The BBC is at it again with its coverage of the George Zimmerman acquittal in the United States.

Using a description of Mr Zimmerman only previously employed by the New York Times, the Radio 4 Today programme described the Obama-voting registered Democrat as a 'white man of Hispanic origin'. This may come as a surprise to the Zimmerman family (above) which looks to Brother Ivo to be a textbook example of President Obama's rainbow multicultural society, but hey, why spoil a story of US racial prejudice by confusing the British public with the facts?

The issues of the Trayvon Martin shooting are pretty commonplace as self-defence cases go.

The 17-year-old had grown somewhat since the universally-employed photograph of him being used by the media was taken. As someone observed, he appeared to have been the only 17-year-old in the western hemisphere not to have had his photograph taken since he was 13.

The video of him buying sweets in a store indicated a figure who could reasonably be regarded in the dark as a more threatening presence than the young Trayvon we see in the standard iconography. That may not be entirely coincidental.

The BBC summarised the issue as concerning a young, unarmed, black youngster shot by a 'white' Neighbourhood Watch volunteer. That was it.

Brother Ivo had thought that the last two elections had demonstrated that if the USA had not yet quite seen the end of old suspicions, the massive win for America’s first black President might have been the beginning of the end. But it seems that if the concept of the passe blanc had been banished from polite society, it still may be revived by those heavily invested in keeping the old enmities alive.

In such cases, context is everything. Whatever the context, the loss of a young life is tragic, and even if Trayvon had been up to no good (which is very far from established) that would not, of itself, have justified the sad outcome. By his dress and/or manner, he attracted the suspicion of George Zimmerman, who was a Neighbourhood Watch volunteer in the mixed-race, gated community in which he lived and in which Trayvon was staying temporarily.

That suspicion was not wholly without foundation. He did not recognise the newcomer as a resident; the community had been beset by much crime, including one shooting; and Zimmerman had previously reported similar suspicious persons to the police, one of whom had been successfully apprehended with the loot from a recent burglary.

His previous reports had been recorded: in none of them had he referenced the race of the suspicious person until specifically requested to do so, as was the case on that particular night. This is important in terms of judging his preconceptions. The Neighbourhood Watch had been established because all residents of whatever racial origin were heartily sick of being targeted for crime, and the police had had only limited success in stopping it, and that was with the generous assistance of folk like George Zimmerman.

Florida is a 'conceal carry' state. George was lawfully armed but had not gone out 'patrolling' that night. His spotting of Trayvon Martin was a chance event.

Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman while he was on the phone to a friend: he described Zimmerman as a 'creepy-ass cracker', a term with racist overtones harking back to the 'cracker' culture of the American South when the poor from that culture often worked as overseers on slave plantations.

In his fascinating book Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the black educationalist and commentator Thomas Sowell writes extensively about the irony that much that is wrong with black youth culture can be traced back to the emulation of the white, slave-abusing, cracker culture: the disdain for tidy dress, little time for education, the use of patois, disrespect for women of all races, a low flashpoint for violence and a fierce sense of personal honour which triggers early recourse to revenge. These were the less endearing aspects of cracker culture, yet, ironically, according to Sowell, its values live on principally amongst many black youngsters who think it a rebellion against former oppressors.

Trayvon Martin wrongly identified George Zimmerman's racial culture, but that need not have mattered in the dark as they lost each other.

Zimmerman had been advised not to engage the supposed intruder to the gated community. The advice was probably for his own safety. He ignored that advice. Had all turned out well and had Trayvon Martin been a malefactor, Zimmerman would no doubt have been regarded as a have-a-go hero. There is no reason to think he was thinking directly in such terms as he sought to find the suspicious stranger in order to direct the police when they arrived. He had already phoned the police, though the BBC account omitted that important fact. This was not go-it-alone vigilantism.

If the mutual fear and suspicion had been at a lower level, the next few minutes would have had a different outcome. The two men encountered each other. Martin was younger and taller; Zimmerman older and heavier. We only have Zimmerman's account of what happened next, though some eye witnesses saw parts of the final dispute.

Zimmerman says he was set upon; Martin cannot tell us. But we do know that not only did Zimmerman give an immediate account to the police before seeing a lawyer, but that none of the forensic evidence contradicted that account. The consistency may well have been important and significantly persuasive. Trayvon Martin ended up on top; Zimmerman's clothing was damp and grass stained in the back. Martin had minor abrasions to his knuckles on one hand; Zimmerman sustained injury to the back of his head consistent with his account of having his head banged on the concrete. At this point, he drew his pistol and fired one shot at point blank range killing Trayvon Martin. The deceased's clothing was hanging away from his body when the gun was fired, suggesting that he was on top as had been claimed. He was not shot from a distance or while running away.

If one excludes prior deliberate intent (..and who invites the police to a planned execution?) everything turned upon the last few seconds of the struggle.

If George Zimmerman reasonably considered his life to be in danger, howsoever they got to that point, he was entitled to fire his gun. Many may not appreciate that if both feared for their lives, both could have pleaded self defence.

Some, such as Fox News commentator Bob Beckel, argue that Zimmerman should not have used his gun as he was 'only' having his head banged on a kerbstone. Beckel significantly underestimates how many people die in fights from head injuries - often from a single punch or kick.

To such folk, Brother Ivo asks a single question: "How much head injury would you be prepared to sustain before concluding that your life may be in danger?" You have three seconds to answer.

These were the issues considered by the jury that acquitted George Zimmerman of murder. Unlike most commentators, they heard all the evidence and submissions on law; they unanimously pronounced that the legal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

For the BBC to report this story as if George Zimmerman were 'hideously white' and had stalked an unarmed boy to murder him is outrageous, but not terribly surprising. As a culturally liberal institution, they are, in this context, being institutionally racist.

They want this story to be about the white man's oppression of black youth, even though there was not a white man in the story or that the bias in the court was, if anything, inclined toward that of a very liberal female judge. The jurors, incidentally, were all female, and most were mothers who were more more than capable of understanding and, indeed, more like to empathise with Trayvon's mother and family in their loss and grief.

Where the BBC further displays disgraceful editorial judgement is in its lack of curiosity of how the prosecution got this far and how the media reported it.

The story was ignited by the intervention of the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton, one of America's principal benefactors of racial division. He and others appear to regret the passing of the good old days of noble struggle against, inter alia, court decisions based upon prejudice and whipped-up emotion rather than upon the forensic dissection of the facts. If you want to understand how much he needed 'a win' in the race-baiting wars, do have a look at the Tawana Brawley story, in which he played a despicable role.

Jesse Jackson has also emerged as part of an attempted self-rehabilitation following his Clintonesque trouser malfunction. Yet even he does have some understanding of how an unknown black youngster dressed in a hoodie might attract suspicion in a community such as Jackson himself observed when he said: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

The US media has similarly made the story into one of racial injustice. Published pictures of George Zimmerman lightened his skin tone; NBS ran a tape of Zimmerman's call for help in which he appeared to identify Trayvon Martin as black, but the operator's preceding routine question as to the race of the suspicious person was editorially removed by the broadcaster, leaving the plainest impression that this was an important part of Zimmerman’s preoccupation. The still from the store video of what Trayvon Martin actually looked like on that night was disseminated much later than the younger image (which still adorns the posters of those protesting the verdict) had been established in the public mind.

This is where the interesting story lies. Why is there such a desire to believe that a tragic but not terribly uncommon death is somehow symptomatic of deep-seated racial division in US society? Why do those who foment this view attract such disproportionate interest?

Finally, in the days between George Zimmerman's arrest and acquittal, some 11,006 black youngsters have been murdered by other black youngsters. These have attracted significantly less interest from Sharpton, Jackson, and the BBC. Those youngsters are obviously not worth bothering about; they have no news value.

If I were a black mother living in the USA, I would not be losing too much sleep over the George Zimmermans of this world. I would leave that to the purveyors of racial politics. After all, they have a living to earn.

They are the professionals.


Blogger Martin said...

It is sad that a BBC, long regarded as leader in honest reporting, now needs to be checked against other, more honest, reports.

It is notable that the BBC will only report what fits its own agenda.

Thank you for the plain reciting of the facts, it is an event I've avoided reading about since I detected a level of bias in the media.

16 July 2013 at 10:31  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

As Martin and others have said, I am dismayed that in my lifetime I have to read blogs to find the facts behind the news...no offence intended at all.

Thank you for firstly describing what the case was actually about, and secondly for taking the time to set out the evidence and contextual issues.

Shame on the BBC and SKY.

16 July 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

Thank you for this wonderfully clear summary.

16 July 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

What should disturb in this case is the fact that the jury consisted of all women. That didn't happen by accident. It was a direct of voir dire and juror profiling. Lawyers seek to shape the outcome of a case by excluding certain perspectives. That's how Casey Anthony got acquitted. The case was decided in voir dire.

I am an Engineer. Defense lawyers hate engineers. We are too analytical. Too resistant to emotional appeal. So periodically I get summoned to the court house for jury selection secure in the knowledge that I will be the defense lawyer's first peremptory strike. And if he sees a teacher in the jury pool, you can bet he will find out if she teaches math or English.

Every time you see a high profile case you must ask 'How was the jury shaped in voir dire? What biases were created by intent of the lawyers?' A jury more randomly selected would produce a more true verdict. Certainly a more credible verdict in controversial cases. But lawyers aren't interested in credible verdicts. Lawyers only care about winning.


16 July 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger Nick said...

Excellent post Brother Ivo.

I must confess to having been taken in by the original press coverage of this case, though I have since abandoned the BBC almost entirely as a news source (even the weather forecasts are often lies :-)).

The BBC, as part of the PC culture, has a "duty" to present the truth in a form that suits the current political zeitgeist. As you say, they have a living to earn, and when the public want dross, you give them dross, to ensure the licence fee keeps coming in.

As to the case in point, it carries none of the hallmarks of severe injustice, as did the Rodney King video for example. By linking this kind of case to racism they devalue the work of those who campaign against genuine cases of racism. It just shows that the old adage "don't believe everything you read in the papers" should be extendd to include most media outlets, including the BBC.

16 July 2013 at 11:44  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Like Martin I feel that it's very sad that the BBC is a purveyor of disinformation, a buttress of the PC brigade where the agenda trumps the truth every time. I hardly watch their television channels nowadays as I have so little faith in the truthfulness of its contents.
In rural Somerset, where I worked for five years, they have a saying "good fences make good neighbours". As a society we are becoming so divided by race, faith and culture I can see fences being erected everywhere between the different groups.

16 July 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I share your sentiments. This is a case that should never have been made into a race-politics slanging match. The only outcome of insisting on racism where there is no evidence of it, is the distortion of the meaning of racism.

President Obama's intervention must weigh heavily in the balance, I think. Incidentally, will the BBC now be referring to him as "President Obama, who idenitifies as black"?

16 July 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Threee things I'm not clear about.

1. Presumably the ideal jury for the Prosecution would have been twelve Afro-Americans, and the ideal jury for the Defence would have been twelve Mexicans. How much leeway does each attorney have in selecting/rejecting jurors?

2. It seems to me that an all-woman jury could have sided with the mother of the victim, or the wife of the accused: so what was the motive?

3. What determined the outcome in this case: the facts, or the composition of the Jury?

16 July 2013 at 13:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Brother Ivo

A very nice piece of factual evidence and summary of the facts.

Carl and explorer.

As far as old Ernst can remember during the early days of the trial process, both the defense and prosecution were delighted that an all women jury has been chosen/agreed as the jury as both sides believed as explorer stated that "an all-woman jury could have sided with the mother of the victim, or the wife of the accused " as them being less emotive with the evidence than a white or black male dominated jury may have been.

The world is a strange place and sometimes in the majority of legal cases, there always is someone who unfortunately is the loser in decisions and has to live with the pain of the decision.



Ernst watched the two part series by the BBC called Making Bradford British to see them at their propaganda best of choosing the ignorant/naive white racists from the various communities of Bradford and the hard working, ever so willing to integrate muslims, that were being misunderstood by the community.

A mixed race pub landlady (on the white british side) was maneuvered into a racist showdown with a muslim exchangee in her public house that was so stage managed by the BBC as to be utterly embarrassing to any unbiased viewer.

One muslim male stormed off after having to live with a white woman at her home after being asked a question regarding race integration and was not seen or mentioned again...imagine it had been a white male that had acted like this. He would have been pursued by the film crew until he declared his reason, then slated as racist.
Racism in our country can only ever come from someone having white skin.

The conclusion was that we all had COMMON VALUES and this is what makes our britishness. Haven't asked for the stoning or the honour killing of someone yet and I don't know of other british people who have either, except Muslims. It appears not very common in us but really common in them but this is being unfair, is it not.

The only thing that ever justifies my licence fee is the Proms and festival of remembrance..all the rest is fascist propaganda from a licence fee bloated, agenda driven bunch of hedonistic intelligentsia morons set for destroying our Britishness.

16 July 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Ernst, The BBC will even, before long, find a way of making the Proms serve their agenda, maybe Wimbledon too. Maybe before long the Proms will have a special Gay night, filled, no doubt with B. Britten, and lots of "specially commissioned" works from the Pink News readership ... and then there's bound to be a few outed lesbian conductors around ... I just bet a BBC guru is working on the idea, somewhere, as I write.

16 July 2013 at 14:08  
Blogger Nick said...


I'm glad you at least found one justification for the licence fee. I'm still struggling to find any at all, though I ocassionally watch their weather forecasts. For me, any news on the BBC is presumed distorted until proven otherwise.

Apparently the beeb has spent £5 million of licence money investigating the Jimmy Saville scandal. Such an appalling waste of public money would probably even make Labour envious

16 July 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger Nick said...

John Thomas

You mean something like "Ponse and Circumstance"?

16 July 2013 at 14:27  
Blogger David Hussell said...

What we seem to have is a tight, cumulative, circular causation process driven by an extravagantly funded "public" broadcaster, aided by much of the rest of the media, coupled to the vast majority of the out of touch politicians. many of whom are, or will be, in the pay of the empire building EU, all acting to destroy British values and culture.

And many good, right thinking folk, who in their hearts, know what is happening, are transfixed but do little or nothing. Why ?

Other than my best, but feeble efforts, within Ukip, and my attempts to uphold traditional Christianity within my Church, I don't know what else one can do. In time, perhaps my will can provide some final resources for the remnant to use.

I do think that more people like me should put their shoulders to the plough, yes, that's what I think.

16 July 2013 at 15:05  
Blogger The PrangWizard of England said...

The BBC is beyond reform. It harms society, it promotes discord, it does its utmost to cover up wrongdoing either of its own making or by its political friends on the Left.
It wastes money, it is self serving, it is morally and financially corrupt. It is out of control.
It is the broadcasting equivalent of the NHS.
It needs to be closed down, but who can do it, is anyone courageous enough to say it?

16 July 2013 at 15:25  
Blogger David Hussell said...


Yes, but there's no point in saying so, unless there's a reasonable prospect of achieving it, since if they continue long after "you say it"they will further besmirch you or your organization, or both probably.

16 July 2013 at 15:38  
Blogger Nick said...

Surely, if the BBC can successfully spread its distorted interpretation of the truth by continual repetition, then it is also possible to spread the untainted truth in the same way?

16 July 2013 at 16:01  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

My teacher friend again

Disciplining black kids often leads to the race card being thrown at you. So you cut them slack. They miss a homework, or don't work as hard as the others, so you cut them more slack to save yourself hassle. They underachieve, and misbehave, so you make the work easier for them and cut them more slack to save yourself hassle.

Never thought of it that way, but it explains an awful lot as why so many black kids end up with no qualifications and no prospects.

Unintended consequences again.


16 July 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The BBC is beyond reform.

I do not have a TV license.......

Probably why my kids seem to do quite well in school and I waste my life writing rubbish on here!


16 July 2013 at 16:29  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Phil Roberts,

Interesting about black kids underachieving.

Is that based on your experience, or that of friends or colleagues or just a theory ? I have absolutely no angle or axe to grind on this, it's just that I would like to know, that's all.

16 July 2013 at 16:34  
Blogger Unknown said...

Stop paying the licence fee! We got rid of the tv two years ago. We thought it would take it would take a long time to get used to being without but we haven't missed it one little bit! Watch the proms on catch up if you must. But do not pay money to a possibly intrinsically evil organisation. If they have no money they will fold.


16 July 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger Unknown said...

Stop paying the licence fee! We got rid of the tv two years ago. We thought it would take it would take a long time to get used to being without but we haven't missed it one little bit! Watch the proms on catch up if you must. But do not pay money to a possibly intrinsically evil organisation. If they have no money they will fold.


16 July 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Nick said...

The implications of large numbers of viewers cancelling their TV Licences, and presumably, disposing of their televisions, would be very interesting.

Obviously, the BBC would not be happy, but neither would the other channels or their advertisers. The latter would pressure the Government to abandon the licence fee and make the BBC subscription-based, or something similar. Nobody in their right mind would pay just to watch the BBC, so the beeb would go to the wall, where, frankly, it belongs.

Viewers would be free to watch television without having to finance a corrupt and grossly inefficient PC proppaganda machine at the same time.

Sounds alright to me...

16 July 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Jimbo said...

'white man of Hispanic origin'.

Does that make Obama a "white man of Kenyan origin"?

16 July 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 July 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ivo, this man was lying in bed, listening to BBC Radio 5 in the middle of the night when the verdict was announced. As a newsflash, no less. Of course, it only made the news as it was possible rioting would take place as a result, and so the story was announced in a curious mixture of anticipation, and glee.

Of course, they’ve since had time to send it through the usual inverted racism converter as you say, which has airbrushed out the usual and replaced it with a halo upon the deceased’s hooded head. Ideally, they would have used a picture him standing in his cot. The BBC must think we are idiots !

Contemporary dress for black male youth in Gloucester is similar. Black chunkie clothing, sinister looking really, that makes the wearer look like a starship shock trooper. The Inspector would dare any white man not to cross the road if he was walking towards one of those characters at dusk !

You see, it’s all planned. Silent intimidation it’s called. No doubt makes the wearer feel he’s somebody, but scares the rest of us peaceful types s___less…

If there are any young black lads reading this, always wear a suit when you’re out. Makes all the difference, you know. Ignore peer pressure. Distance yourself from those losers, and get on in life…

16 July 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

On the subject of the BBC abusing the licence fee, commentators on this site may not be aware that London is bidding for the right to hold “The Gay Games” in 2018. If this man also informs you that its original name was going to be The Gay Olympics, (before the IOC threatened to sue them) you’ll get the idea of what is happening.

Now, you don’t have to be gay to compete. Rather like the real Olympics, then. So why self promoting homosexuals feel the need to put on a show at all under their auspices would at first glance not seem apparent. But do read on…

Of course, the cost and sheer bother of arranging this forthcoming sporting spectacular is to bring Big Gay to young people. If London does get it, one can safely assume that all kinds of gay merchandise will find its way to schools, and then straight to the incinerator if the management have any sense. God alone knows the horrors that would be sent…

Will London get the games ? Well, London is vying with Rio de Janeiro, Paris, Orlando, Amsterdam and Limerick to stage the event.

If London succeeds, will the BBC broadcast them from morning to evening, 7/ 7? One thinks we all know the answer to that one, what !

16 July 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Marya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 July 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

Outstanding work, Brother Ivo. Thank you.

You're so right about the marxist-driven media agenda: but hey, why spoil a story of US racial prejudice by confusing the British public with the facts? May I also echo Mr. Hussell's response to the dynamic: Like Martin I feel that it's very sad that the BBC is a purveyor of disinformation, a buttress of the PC brigade where the agenda trumps the truth every time.

I had the opportunity to ask a Jewish Floridian for his reaction to the case. Having grown up in a similar community to the Zimmerman's, he believed the verdict was fair; he thought that Zimmerman's agenda would be to protect his community - that was what he tried to do.

It's also great fun to see, here, that the feminism applied to the jury has backfired!!! May we hope that family values and community realities can still trump political agenda?

Perhaps - unless the enemy learn to apply better racial profiling: they need to choose black women who lumber about rolling in fat, who pout continually, and whose eyes swim with tears at the hint of anything British. They should choose white/hispanic women who are also fat, who are aggressive in seeming upper class (American women excel at this), and who are impelled to touch everyone they speak to. The combined force would power through Justice like a "big Mack Truck" - driven by the Devil.

As for TV ... I also gave it up years ago. Just as well, really: computer technology is an even bigger waste of time.

16 July 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

The BBC could save itself much criticism and expense by abandoning its Washington desk and turning all American commentary over to "Brother Ivo Productions" or something like it.
A superb review of a tragic case that should never have been pursued.

All the cut-throat leftists and whiners jumped on this.
A better example of the skewed US justice system would be hard to find. Out of control elected prosecutors are a menace to civilised society.
The terms of debate were just as it is in the abortion industry. It was always "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman" -an unfortunate name for a defendant in the best of circumstances. As one destined for infanticide is a "Foetus" whilst the child to be born is "Baby."

A few years back another political persecution took placed in North Carolina. The wretched prosecutor, one Mike Nifong, was disbarred. Let's hope the same happens in Florida.

16 July 2013 at 19:32  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

"White man of Hispanic origin" - I'd love to run that one past the KKK and the White Power movement!

16 July 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Actually, come to think of it, does that mean that when the US elects its first Hispanic President no one will pay special attention because it's just another white President really...?

Boy, am I confused...

16 July 2013 at 19:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David H

The teacher friend of mine says he just hangs back from disciplining black kids. He says that he is always in the wrong and has to prove that he is not a racist whenever a black kid complains, so when he does discipline a black kid he always tries to punish a white kid at the same time, (He only intervenes when he has the chance to "do" a white and a black for the same offense) to avoid the charge of racism.

He works in an Academy School, so it seems it is not an LEA thing.

Apparently he has researched this an most black parents want their kids disciplined, but his says that the only teachers that can effectively do this are black teachers. (Very few)

The rest are white and so assumed to be racist in any dispute and many of the black kids know this and use it.


16 July 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In Africa, young black lads start to become agitated around the age of puberty. It marks the time when they say goodbye to mother’s nipple, and join the men in hunting and raiding parties. Well, that was Africa in the nineteenth century and hunting and raiding parties are now in the past. The lads still get agitated though.

Of course, this behaviour, having existed for tens of thousands of years is now inherent. Which is why you find it wherever black people are. So the next time you read about a teenage black on black killing in London, you will know what’s going on. You can see how Ivo’s figure of 11000 black young dead by other young blacks over a period of time has come about.

Fascinating subject, you know – negro anthropology. One believes more would study it, if they weren’t called filthy fascist racists as a result of their endeavours...

16 July 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Phil Roberts,

Thank you for that. Sounds plausible.

I was once the manager for a staff member, of the most honest and competent sort, whose sound advice to a black member of the public ( this was a public body operating our Town Planning laws) was not well received. The offended person complained legally, pulled the "racial prejudice" card. An "independent" central Gov. inspector, whilst stating that it was just one persons word, and recollection, against another, decided that "it seems fairer" to give the balance of doubt to the complainant , so as to avoid any possibility of racial prejudice. So my staff member, a sound and honest professional, was sacrificed. Appalling ! He had to endure the local news coverage. Boy did I have to give him some moral support, all in private of course, to get him past that episode. That was my turning point when I realized that we the indigenous people were being stuffed. Protection flows just one way it seems.

16 July 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

At the closing years of the last century, a real tragedy happened – Solicitors were allowed to advertise. Needless to say, these intelligent scoundrels were quick off the mark. So now, if you have fallen off a curb, suffered from whiplash, which now occurs in the majority of car shunts, or are a coloured immigrant on the make, off you go and bear false witness. The ‘legal’ profession will be there to help you achieve that, having taken their cut...

Take note all ye law types who now have a grudge against the Inspector. You unscrupulous legal bastards listen up here. This post is the Inspector’s considered OPINION and as such, there is nothing you bleeders can do about it.

hah !

16 July 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger Nick said...

"Take note all ye law types who now have a grudge against the Inspector. "

Inspector, I couldn't imagine anybody having a grudge against you. Your posts are always the epitome of tact and pollteness blended with more than a tad of honesty!

16 July 2013 at 23:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

What an excellent article. Before reading it I had fallen into the trap of believing the 'spin' put on this by the media.

As a side issue, if facing trail on a capital charge, I'd sooner have a jury drawn from women like Sister Tiberia. On the other hand, if my child had been murdered, then give me a jury of men like Carl Jacobs.

I really can't fathom why this might be.

17 July 2013 at 01:00  
Blogger Peter D said...


On form tonight, I see.

Gay Olympics! One shudders at the events to be staged. 'Pass the baton' and the 'Pole vault' suddenly take on new meaning.

Now onto black culture in America and Britain, did you read Br Ivo's comments on this:

" ... the irony that much that is wrong with black youth culture can be traced back to the emulation of the white, slave-abusing, cracker culture: the disdain for tidy dress, little time for education, the use of patois, disrespect for women of all races, a low flashpoint for violence and a fierce sense of personal honour which triggers early recourse to revenge."

Seems it was 'us' white folk, not African heritage, that caused all this.

As for lawyers, couldn't agree more. One recalls being involved in a RTA a few years ago. Car rammed into the back of me at a roundabout. The firm dealing with the claim couldn't accept I had not suffered any injury and asked me several times about 'whiplash'. Going rate is £3k, I understand.

17 July 2013 at 01:12  
Blogger Steve Compton said...

Why is there such a desire to believe this stuff? Too many people dropped too much LSD back in the 60s.

17 July 2013 at 02:54  
Blogger Addis Ethiopia said...

Steve Compton said...

"Why is there such a desire to believe this stuff? Too many people dropped too much LSD back in the 60s"

Exactly my thought! I don't believe what I am reading, on a supposedly "Christian" blog.

They seem to have been alongside Zimmerman in Florida, and know everything. "Don't judge!" is a precious Christian rule, but they, including the writer of the article, use the BBC as a scapegoat to express their racial prejudices, in a primitive way. Well, I hope it's not to stay humble and repent

17 July 2013 at 22:03  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

What silly drivel, Addis. If one doesn't judge, one is a coward. If one can't judge, one is a moron. You, though, already judged without any foundation other than your default assumption that the Black guy, even if he's a nasty gangbanger, is always innocent. That makes you a genuine racist.

18 July 2013 at 00:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Peter D, thanks for the candid info on slavery a few posts back. I;ve ben stupidly busy lately, with long days and torrential rains followed by a heat wave.

You said, seems it was 'us' white folk, not African heritage, that caused all this. I'm sure it's not what Brother Ivo meant. I read it as him quoting a Black historian who bemoans the fact that Antebellum Black slaves and workers emulated the dregs of White society, the overseer "crackers." Unless you were being ironic.

18 July 2013 at 01:13  
Blogger Peter D said...


Being busy will keep you out of mischief.

I wasn't being entirely ironic, though my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. I just think 'black youth culture', whatever that is, is more complicated than that presented by the Inspector - something about adolescence agitation at separation from their mother's nipples.

18 July 2013 at 15:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, a thousand guineas and a brace of Lavendon’s pheasants for the first man to bring forth a photograph of young Martin helping old people cross the road, guiding the blind along a pavement, washing strangers feet. You know, the usual kind of thing saintly hooded black youth get up to, but which is never reported. Not considered news worthy enough one supposes...

18 July 2013 at 19:14  
Blogger Ivan said...

Large swathes of the US press and the establishment were ecstatic when they heard that one Zimmermann had killed a young man that could have been Obama's son. They thought they had hit the trifecta - a white, male and very likely jewish crminal - to hang their teaching moment BS about race on. For who else but a white racist, possibly fallen on indigent circumstances could have such a pucha sahib name and be roaming the 'hood. When it turned out that Zimmermann was in fact a mocha-coloured Puerto Rican, much of the ecstasy dissipated. But not before a whole army of grievance-mongers, egged on by Barack and his minions had set the machinery of state and the howling mobs in motion. These same people would doubtless, piously intone how horrible the Inquisition was and so on, but they prefer that we ignore the irony here. The railroading of Zimmermann, and of Darun Ravi around the same time mark what has become apparent for some time: the US justice system is seriously compromised by years of politicised prosecutions and attendant abuse such as double-jeopardy and plea-bargaining.

19 July 2013 at 01:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older