Youth Killed in Bakery Row

[Officer Dibble]

"Ah, but if it turned out that this 'unnamed witness' was a lying fucker, with it turning out the culprits were white, no one would give a shit what the The Sun printed."

Sam, what are you talking about? Does anyone give a shit what the Sun printed in this instance? If so, who, and why?

It's true that sensationalism and hyperbole are a priority in the tabloids (and to a lesser extent the broadsheets). But that doesn't mean what they print isn?t true (Sunday Sport and Desmond's Express excepted). Indeed, apart from the afor mentioned they are all much more factual then some might give them credit for. The only difference between them and some of the broadsheets is the stories they choose to highlight. For instance, The Guardian wouldn't be too keen on reporting factual court cases about ethnics and asylum seekers looting pillaging and murdering. But stories like these would be grist to the mill of The Mail and the Sun. Guardian readers just wouldn't want to hear that. They'd close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and chant, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you..." They?d be much happier reading about some new ?Diversity Awareness Project? in inner-city Slough or something.

It?s also true that the BBC has to be more careful and circumspect ? but it?s my contention that this was not the reason for them being a bit hazy on the perpetrator?s descriptions. Instead I would suggest that is part of their political agenda ? to play down negative images and stories of ethnic minorities and inflate, or give prominence to, positive images of the same. If the BBC was held in higher regard in the past it is rapidly squandering that respect with it?s clearly biased ?luvvie? agenda.



Officer Dibble

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Does anyone give a shit what the Sun printed in this instance? If so, who, and why?[/quote]

Well, you brought 'The Sun' up, Dibble - and on that topic: Hardly anyone intelligent cares what the Sun prints.....that was my point.

[quote]The Guardian wouldn't be too keen on reporting factual court cases about ethnics and asylum seekers looting pillaging and murdering. But stories like these would be grist to the mill of The Mail and the Sun.[/quote]

I'm inclined to agree. Where The Guardian may shy away from certain stories that may not back-up their political viewpoints, The Daily mail will jump at any chance to sensationalise and exaggerate, maybe to reinforce their political agenda. In reality, they both cannot be relied upon for an objective view of the stories they cover.

I still disagree with you about the BBC being hazy. A sole 'unnamed' witness exclaiming a 'few black dudes' were running from the scene, isn't enough for a supposed nationally funded, objective media outlet to jump to conclusions. The witness in the Sun's article didn't even see the stabbing. I'm not disagreeing in that media outlets are bias....just that, in this instance, the BBC were correct -in my opinion- in their reportage.

[Sam Slater]

Here may be your answer, from the Guardian website:
[quote]A Metropolitan police spokeswoman urged the media not to speculate about the identity of the teenager currently in police custody, saying that could prove prejudicial to the investigation.[/quote]

'Luvvie agenda' or just co-operating with the police?

[Officer Dibble]

?Hardly anyone intelligent cares what the Sun prints.....that was my point.?

Oh, I beg to differ. Many of the finest political minds in the country care VERY MUCH what the Sun prints. Haven?t you heard the phrase ? ?It?s The Sun Wot Won It!?





The Sun is hugely influential amongst working class voters ? the tradesmen, the laborers and ?white van men?. The ?C2s? who are the taxpaying backbone of this country. Prime Ministers and political parties of all hues cower before Rupert Murdoch and the Sun, lest they incur his wrath.

So, are you suggesting that the honest tradesmen and laborers who pick up a copy of the Currant Bun every morning and read the editorial (after having a gander at page 3) aren?t intelligent? Could you be suggesting that they are in fact ?ignorant??


?I still disagree with you about the BBC being hazy. A sole 'unnamed' witness exclaiming a 'few black dudes' were running from the scene, isn't enough for a supposed nationally funded, objective media outlet to jump to conclusions.?

What conclusions are you talking about? This incident happened on the busiest shopping street in the land (we're talking about the Oxford Street incident now remember). There could have been hundreds of people who saw it. There is hardly any doubt about the nature of the people who were involved in it. Nobody is suggesting the suspects be summarily adjudged guilty ? just that full descriptions of them should be made available to the general public so that they might be apprehended in a timely fashion and taken down the nick for a spot of the old questioning.

What you seem to be suggesting is that descriptions of crime suspects should hence forth not be released or reported in the media because witness and news organizations are biased!




Officer Dibble

[Sam Slater]

[quote]So, are you suggesting that the honest tradesmen and laborers who pick up a copy of the Currant Bun every morning and read the editorial (after having a gander at page 3) aren?t intelligent?[/quote]

Well, you're the king of conjecture & speculation; you tell me. If I'd have said 'no intelligent person reads The Sun' you'd have been on steadier ground......too bad I didn't.

[quote](we're talking about the Oxford Street incident now remember). There could have been hundreds of people who saw it.[/quote]

Too bad the 'current bun' only found one unnamed witness then, isn't it? Why is that I wonder? A 'witness' who didn't even see the incident (so not really a witness at all! I mean 'fucking hell!').

[quote]What you seem to be suggesting is that descriptions of crime suspects should hence forth not be released or reported in the media because witness and news organizations are biased![/quote]

What you seem to be suggesting is that a sole 'witness', who didn't see the crime anyway, be given credibility in the national press. You've mentioned it yourself, that there must have been 100's of witnesses. Haven't you wondered at all, why the only person The Sun could quote, on such a serious matter, had not even seen the crime? Bit weird innit?

I'd much rather have a media that works with the police on such serious matters, rather than be so speculative and presumptuous.....and anyway, the Guardian article I quoted below, gives clues as to why the media may have withheld certain details.

[Officer Dibble]

In your comments about Sun readers you didn't categorically say, although you clearly implied, that Sun readers were stupid. This is not an uncommon view amongst the more articulate forumites - so why are you being so coy now?

Regarding the 'one witness' that the Currant Bun allegedly found. There is no 'one witness', there never was - the whole of Oxford Street knows what happened. This is just a device newspapers use to say something when they cannot attribute a quote directly or solely to any one person - for instance if it was an off the record quote or if it's about a matter that will be soon be subjudicy. Would you want the Sun naming and quoting you (maybe even publishing a picture) if you?d seen the stabbing incident? Or would you much rather tell them what you saw on the condition that you remained an ?unnamed witness??


?I'd much rather have a media that works with the police?

You mean like in a police state? I had my suspicions about you, Sam?


The Guardian article you allude to refers to the original bakery incident ? not the Oxford Street incident that we are talking about now.




Officer Dibble

[crofter]

Ha Ha priceless patter from the prince of pish aka Mr. Sam Slater ... Sam do you actually read "The Sun" or do you just kind of go along with the general snobby middleclass consensus that "The Sun" is for working class dudes who obviously haven't got a brain between them so they don't know any better.
I am now awaiting some feedback claiming that you are a working class chap who reads "The Sun" diligently whilst in the shitter ...!surrender!

[Sam Slater]

I never thought I'd have to babysit you through a debate, Dibble. My guess is you know what I mean, but you're just on the wind-up - eh?

[quote]In your comments about Sun readers you didn't categorically say, although you clearly implied, that Sun readers were stupid.[/quote]

I didn't. The context of what I said was based around intelligent Sun readers and how much they cared about accuracy this tabloid prints, compared to the BBC. If you missed my point then I apologise (again: I think you knew my meaning, but decided to link to Kinnock jibes from the 80's in an attempt to put spin on my words). Now I've made it clear, anymore misunderstanding on your part is due to a lack of understanding, or being on the wind-up.

[quote]Regarding the 'one witness' that the Currant Bun allegedly found. There is no 'one witness', there never was - the whole of Oxford Street knows what happened. This is just a device newspapers use to say something when they cannot attribute a quote directly or solely to any one person[/quote]

Again, more presumptions and conjecture....but I'll ride along with you for a while and say what you presume is true. They could have always started their sentence with "Several unnamed witnesses all confirmed that they saw two black men run from the scene.". They chose not to, which seems really weird to me. I mean, there's a big difference between one witness and hundreds (unnamed or not). If indeed it is just terminology, I've come across 'several' more than 'one', when 'several' was the reality, during my lifetime of reading newspaper reports.

[quote]You mean like in a police state?[/quote]

Err....no. Since you deduced implications of me, I'll return the compliment: It seems you're implying that the media are in favour of a police state; you're also implying that the media should not help the police (and with that, the society we live in). No?

[quote]The Guardian article you allude to refers to the original bakery incident ? not the Oxford Street incident that we are talking about now.[/quote]

You've got me here......yet, all is not lost. In both incidents, the media have been criticised by certain members of the public for withholding information on the attackers race, so maybe the answers are similar? I'll leave the speculation to the experts.

[Officer Dibble]

"I didn't. The context of what I said was based around intelligent Sun readers and how much they cared about accuracy this tabloid prints, compared to the BBC. If you missed my point then I apologise (again: I think you knew my meaning, but decided to link to Kinnock jibes from the 80's in an attempt to put spin on my words). Now I've made it clear, anymore misunderstanding on your part is due to a lack of understanding, or being on the wind-up."

You did. But apart from that, what are you talking about?


"Again, more presumptions and conjecture....but I'll ride along with you for a while and say what you presume is true. They could have always started their sentence with "Several unnamed witnesses all confirmed that they saw two black men run from the scene.". They chose not to, which seems really weird to me. I mean, there's a big difference between one witness and hundreds (unnamed or not). If indeed it is just terminology, I've come across 'several' more than 'one', when 'several' was the reality, during my lifetime of reading newspaper reports."

Eh?


"Err....no. Since you deduced implications of me, I'll return the compliment: It seems you're implying that the media are in favour of a police state; you're also implying that the media should not help the police (and with that, the society we live in). No?"

Hey, am I in the Twilight Zone? Jingle, jangle, jingle, jangle... I mean, I can't make head nor tail of the waffling, serpentine, responses to the relatively simple points I made. It's as if you are replying to questions and points other than the ones I put to you...jingle, jangle, jingle jangle...Maybe we are each talking to our alternative selves in parallel realities?

Or maybe the answer is a little more prosaic? Maybe a plain speaking course might be of help? They might have an evening class at the uni (or even a day class). Why don?t you check it out - if you?ve got time?





Officer Dibble

[crofter]

Next week on Lost ....