Quite interesting to read this BBC report which attributes the brutal stabbing of “Harry Potter” actor Robert Knox as the act of “a madman.” As Jon reports over on the excellent House of Dumb, it’s lucky that BBC interest in the story ends at the point. After all, you never know what the motivation of the killer really was….

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. martin says:

    Only whitey can be a racist in the world of the BBC.


  2. Jason says:

    Political correctness cripples the minds of the spineless to the point where their content no longer has any correlation with the outside world.

    I remember a few years ago in New York a young white graduate was beaten to death by a wolf pack of Muslim men for no reason – witnesses heard them shouting “get the white motherf*cker” before beating his skull to a pulp with iron bars. Incredibly, the police refused to class it as a racial incident, explaining that the term “white motherf*cker” was just an identifier, like “get the kid with the glasses.” They weren’t even charged with murder.

    Not long before that, a white woman was stabbed to death in a parking lot in White Plains by a black man who immediately admitted to cops that he just wanted to kill a Caucasian female – and it took the local DA about 3 or 4 weeks of careful consideration before she reluctantly categorized it as a hate crime.

    A few weeks later, a young white guy chased a car thief in his neighborhood and hit him with a baseball bat. During the altercation, the n-word was used. The thing was a scandal for weeks, the mayor stood behind a podium and angrily said that such behavior should never happen in this day and age – and the usual racial soul-searching ensued in the liberal media. The kid eventually received 15 years in jail for an assault that would ordinarily have landed him less than a year.


  3. Dick the Prick says:

    Good grief.


  4. Anonymous says:

    This, bluntly, is bollocks and a shame to this blog.

    There is no evidence the posting is from the killer.

    There is no evidence the killer had anything to do with this posting.

    There is, in short, no evidence of any kind to link that post to the motivation of the killer.

    This is a poor, poor showing by this blog.


  5. Jon says:

    “There is no evidence the posting is from the killer.”

    No one says it is – did you read the link?

    Now that is sick


  6. Kegs says:


    Had this been a black teenager stabbed by a white the BBC would have tried to find absolutely anything to label it a rascist murder. Try finding news stories on the beeb about a white murder being racially motivated. You will struggle. It’s an undeniable fact that Liberals, especially at the Beeb think that only whites can be rascist.


  7. Jason says:

    Let’s also not forget that when the Beeb reports incidents of multiple shootings in the US, whenever the shooter is white they’ll be sure to offer a physical description of him including his skin color, even when he’s dead or has already been caught. A la:

    But the only circumstances in which they’ll mention the skin color of a non-white killer is if he’s still on the loose and poses a threat to the public. Mind you, even this is no guarantee.


  8. AndrewSouthLondon says:

    BBC thinks its mission to promote social cohesion comes before its purpose to report news. I’ve lost count of the times the significant attributes of a murderer or whatever is withheld or brushed under the carpet, or watered down to “of Mediterranean appearance” Italian? Greek?

    Usually the only clue we get is in their name. Like Mohamed…or Addibayo…or Smith. And then to be told they are “from Birmingham”, as opposed to “from Ethiopia now living in Birmingham”


  9. mikewineliberal says:

    It’s a court report, reporting on what was said in court. The bbc would be in court for contempt if it speculated on a racial motive, unless that motive was discussed in court.

    In a strong and crowded field, this appears to be one of the dumbest david vance efforts yet.


  10. Alex says:

    Anonymous is right. This isn’t the motivation of the killer. This is the motivation of someone completely different.

    Coming soon on Biased-BBC: How the BBC omits that Professor Moriarty was motivated by Communism, as recently discovered statements by Ernst Stavro Blofeld reveal.


  11. Grant says:

    Mikewine 9:46
    The BBC is quite happy to attribute racist motives if the perpetrator is white and the victim non-white. It is irrelevant to the BBC whether the matter has been discussed in court or not.
    Just another example of perverted BBC bias.


  12. Chuffer says:

    Alex, have you really atracted only THREE commments on your site in six months – and two of them are from the same person? Oh dear.


  13. Makemineiliberal says:

    “The bbc would be in court for contempt if it speculated on a racial motive, unless that motive was discussed in court.”

    What utter crap.

    Any whiff of a crime that has a white perpetrator and a non-white victim has hate crime stamped all over it in any BBC report and there is never any sort of retraction if it turns out to be nothing of the sort.


  14. scribbler1 says:

    O/T sorry, but could anyone please post the name of the book and the author published a couple of years ago, where the author is an ex BBC person and the subject is BBC bias. I can’t find it using Amazon etc. Thanks


  15. Ratass Shagged says:

    Mikewhine. Perhaps you would care to prove that the BBC would be in contempt or admit you are wrong. A simple search through BBC news archives on White against black crimes would prove this. However I doubt you will return to this thread.


  16. Y4dfarm says:

    Hi Scribbler1,

    It’s “Can we trust the BBC?” by Robin Aitken.

    Cheers from Singapore!


  17. will says:

    Scrap the BBC!: Ten Years to Set Broadcasters Free (Hardcover)
    by Richard D. North ?


  18. mikewineliberal says:

    Ratass Shagged | 14.02.09 – 1:09 pm

    My point is, if race is an issue in the case then it will feature in the case as racially motivated cases attract a premium at sentencing. Hitherto, it doesn’t appear that it has – although it might yet if the prosecution makes it a feature of their case – in which case the media can probably report. Unless it does however neither the bbc or any other media organisations can speculate on motivation in reporting the case. Reporting court cases is heavily restricted in all manner of ways. I might be wrong, but I think i’m probably right; in which case DV’s article is dumb.


  19. Susan Franklin says:


    Another book worth reading is ‘What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics’ by John Lloyd


  20. Bulls**t Detective says:

    Hi David,

    Where in the report does the BBC attribute the stabbing of Robert Knox as the act of “a madman.”? I see where Tom Hopkins described him thus but where the BBC?

    This article is a report about what happened in court that day. That’s how court reporting works. Journalists have restrictions in their coverage of court cases and are largley confined to reporting what happened in court that day. I hope this is clear.

    Your suggestion however seems to be that the BBC should report that the motivation was racial but it’s stated on the obscure website you feature. So, correspondents shouldn’t report what the police say or the courts say, they should just report random statements on some obscure website. That makes sense?!?!

    Is it cos he is black David?


  21. Jon says:

    So what do you say to this then – Mike?

    “Man charged over night bus murder”

    “A BUS passenger has been stabbed to death • in what his dad claimed yesterday was a race attack.”

    Now it is only a claim by his father – but it was not reported by the BBC.

    Do you think that this would have happened if it was the other way round?


  22. Jon says:

    Bulls**t Detective | 14.02.09 – 10:22 pm |

    You obviously don’t know the law –

    Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report: ” A Racist Incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”

    They don’t even have to be at the scene of the crime.


  23. mikewineliberal says:

    Jon | 14.02.09 – 10:22 pm

    I would direct you to this report, about how facists were hijacking his death to make the point you are making.

    I would point you to the quote that “Police were not treating the attack as racially motivated”.

    I would then suggest that unwittingly you have made my point for me. The Sun’s reporting was irresponsible; the BBC’s was not.


  24. Jack Bauer says:

    Ratass Shagged | 14.02.09 – 1:09 pm

    My point is, if race is an issue in the case then it will feature in the case as racially motivated cases attract a premium at sentencing. “

    Err, BOLLOCKS. That DOES NOT happen when the racIst killer is black and the victim is white


  25. The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

    It would seem that no-one but the killers knows what their motives were. Just ‘cos they is black’ is no reason to suppose that, in this case, race had any special part in the murder.

    To suggest it does on the basis of some dick-head’s post on a crap web-site shows more about the bloggers mind-set than the killers.

    This post and the reaction to it by the usual suspects just adds to the overall impression that this site is run for BNP foamers.

    If this blog wants to be taken seriously and not just be a platform for hate-mongs then this sort of post has to be either filled with a lot more evidence than some anoymous tripe that could have been posted by, hmm, how about the BNP as agit-prop?

    2/10 must do better.


  26. Jack Bauer says:

    Cattle Prod –what an odd post. What exactly is your point?

    That blacks don’t attack whites based on race? Is that YOUR point.

    Or that even if they do, one must not muse on that possibility?


  27. mikewineliberal says:

    Jack Bauer | Homepage | 15.02.09 – 11:22 am

    I know race attacks occur between most ethnic groups. But the point here is a narrow one: is the bbc remiss in not reporting a racial motive. And it is clear that it is not because, as things stand, that is not a feature of this case.

    david vance is wrong


  28. Jack Bauer says:

    mikewineliberal | 15.02.09 – 11:45 am | #

    But the BBC constantly muses on the “race” angle, when the killer is white, and the victim is black, whether or not this has been “established.”

    Why is this, I ponder?


  29. The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

    Jack Bauer | Homepage | 15.02.09 – 11:22 am |
    I think you just made my point for me.


  30. Jack Bauer says:


    In fact, the BBC is so reliably perverse on the subject, that one can pretty much guarantee than in any news item, if the races of victim and suspect are NOT mentioned, then it is because the races don’t fit the BBC “hate” crime template.


  31. Jack Bauer says:

    The Cattle Prod of Destiny:
    Jack Bauer | Homepage | 15.02.09 – 11:22 am |
    I think you just made my point for me.


    Spell it out. Give us the benefit of your brain.


  32. Jack Bauer says:


    And do try not to be a sanctimonious dick, Mr Prod


  33. The Cattle Prod of Destiny says:

    Jack Bauer | Homepage | 15.02.09 – 12:35 pm |
    And do try not to be a sanctimonious dick, Mr Prod

    OOOH That hurts 😛

    Try thinking instead of insulting and you might get it eventually.


  34. Jack Bauer says:

    So you have NO point.

    Thanks for confirming that to me.


  35. Anonymous says:

    I’ve never posted on this blog before, I don’t agree with a lot of what’s said about bias but I think blogs like this have an important role to play in monitoring the output of the BBC.

    This post is ridiculous. Some idiot posts something offensive on an obscure website and the BBC should report that as news and take what it says as true?

    Posts like this make it far too easy for this blog’s detractors to be able to dismiss it as pointless.


  36. mikewineliberal says:

    Anonymous | 15.02.09 – 1:09 pm

    They certainly do. But increasingly the central purpose of b-bbc is as a platform for David Vance’s political views. Bbc bias is merely a pretext. Once you understand that, the rest falls into place.


  37. Reverend Jolly says:


    Well said. I came here thinking it was about BBC bias. its more like a nut job’s gathering to discuss the governments latest plot against them.


  38. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Way to crow in triumph over low-hanging fruit, guys. It just shows up the failure to disprove the serious charges of BBC bias.


  39. mikewineliberal says:

    David – Are you not a little tired of the number of posts David Vance makes which are readily dismantled? I can’t think of many gloves this site lays on the bbc. And the post giving rise to this thread was a disgrace.


  40. David Vance says:


    The more you disapprove the happier I get.

    And to cut to the chase on this, the POINT here is that the BBC IS wilfully and offensively SELECTIVE as to how it reports certain types of crime. If you can’t deal with that – I could not care less.


  41. mikewineliberal says:

    David Vance | Homepage | 15.02.09 – 7:50 pm

    You can’t wriggle off this hook with your glib generalities. Do you stand by the piece that gave rise to this thread? I think it was a disgrace.


  42. Jon says:

    “I would then suggest that unwittingly you have made my point for me. ”

    No I am not making your point I am making mine – and that is because of the McPhearson inquiry – anyone can claim a crime as racist – it doesn’t matter what the police are saying – that is why most crimes committed by whites on blacks are racist – because that is how it must be perceived in the light of the report. If the fascists are hijacking that, then that surely shows the idiocy of allowing anyone to make a crime “racist” before any evidence is gathered and before any court has passed a verdict.
    David Vance is right – if the BBC can say a crime is racist before any evidence is shown – then it must apply equally.


  43. Jon says:

    I would also point out the despicable murder of a “goth” – the murder was perpetrated because the person did not like his appearance – but this was proved in the courts, as it should. Not by the media implying the cause.

    For in implying that a crime is committed because of such and such, the BBC and the rest of the media are actually influencing a trial before it has begun – Do you really think that is how the law should work.


  44. David Preiser (USA) says:

    mikewineliberal | 15.02.09 – 6:28 pm |

    Are you not a little tired of the number of posts David Vance makes which are readily dismantled? I can’t think of many gloves this site lays on the bbc. And the post giving rise to this thread was a disgrace.

    Yes, I, too, wish David Vance was perfect. I wish I was perfect. I wish everyone was perfect. A handful of sub-optimal posts don’t detract from the rest of the topics he correctly raises, nor the general energy drive to keep things moving from day to day, or especially from the blog at large, as much as you and other defenders of the indefensible would like to make the case that it does.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always felt that this blog was rather unique in that the contributions of the commenters are at least as important as any of the moderators who make the main posts. There’s less simplistic “me too” than most places, and more useful perspectives from many different areas. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that there has been as much solid original commentary in the General Comments threads as in any of the topical posts. There’s no offense meant to DV here, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said this same thing even before he ever got here. That’s what made me think this blog was worthwhile in the first place. That hasn’t changed, and isn’t likely to.

    Dismissing the entire blog because of something like this just doesn’t add up. Especially when, contrary to your spin, people here have laid quite a few gloves on your Auntie.


  45. Tom says:

    mikewineliberal | 15.02.09 – 8:14 pm

    David Vance can speak for himself about why he posted this thread.

    But I can tell you what it means for me.

    The only reporting of the Knox story I’ve seen has been on the BBC. Everything I know about the story is what the BBC chose to tell me. Any lacunae in my knowledge of the case are things the BBC chose not to tell me.

    Until I read this thread, I did NOT know that Knox’s alleged assailant was a member of any ethnic minority. I had presumed he was white. Nor did I know until David Vance put up the link that the man has now been taken up as some sort of hero by the black street gangs of SE London.

    The BBC may think these facts are irrelevant. But as a consumer of news, I find them interesting. I wish I had been told earlier.


  46. Tom says:

    Oh, and further to the above –

    If the BBC did not know these facts, then they’re not very efficient. If they did know, but decided it was best not to tell me… then I think they have been appallingly patronizing.

    What do they think I might do, if I found out? Start a race riot?

    The BBC should start telling us the WHOLE story, they should trust the public, not treat us like morons or children who can’t be trusted with the truth.

    Who the hell do these just post-teenage semi-literates in the BBC newsroom think they bloody well are to decide what news it’s safe to tell me?