Reply to: Islamic state of London not safe, in general

[NickFitz]

Worthy of note: the police have not suggested that this attack was anything to do with "Muslim patrols" - but neither does the story in the Times. Instead, it takes the Met's appeal, published yesterday, and mixes in a bunch of stuff about "Muslim patrols" from nearly a year earlier.

Here's the Met's appeal: Police appeal following bottle attack in Tower Hamlets - Metropolitan Police Service If you read it, you'll see that it's reproduced in fairly straightforward paraphrase in the Times piece.

However the Times piece also adds various bits:

"...in an area of London which has seen attacks on people accused of un-Islamic activities"

Note that this does not say that this incident is known to have involved any accusation of un-Islamic activities. However it plants the idea in the reader's mind.

"The area has seen attacks by self-appointed members of “Muslim Patrols” who have targeted people who have been drinking, they believe are gay, or women they consider to be dressed inappropriately."

Although this is thrown into the middle of a description of the incident, it does not say that this was such an attack; it merely says something about the area. But again, it's subconsciously influencing the reader to make the connection.

"Detectives investigating a self-styled Muslim Patrol gang arrested five people in January following a string of incidents in east London where members of the public were harassed.

"A video posted online show men from the gang in Whitechapel telling one man “no drink in this area, it’s a Muslim area” before ordering him to pour away his alcohol."

Note that these arrests - of five people, hardly a groundswell of opinion - were made in January. The assault that is the subject of the story happened in June. There is nothing in the story to suggest that there have been any "Muslim patrol" incidents since the arrests were made. The video cited is nothing to do with this assault; it is a different incident, from before the arrests (so probably last year).

"Majid Nawaz, the chairman of the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism organisation, wrote in The Times that Muslim Patrols “could become a lot more dangerous”."

Is this anti-extremist a spokesman for the "Islamic state of London"? Or maybe he's one of the many Nawazes who trace their ancestry to the Norman Conquest. Either way, this passes for balance in case anybody tries to claim the story is fomenting hatred.

So at the moment we have a violent affray in the street. The police, who presumably have some knowledge of what went on from having spoken to the victim, have not suggested that the incident was in any way related to religious considerations.

But a Murdoch hack rewrites the police's appeal, mixing in a few details from an unrelated story involving a small group of Muslims who were arrested six months before this incident; and the casual reader mistakenly thinks the two stories are related.

And that is how the proudest traditions of British journalism are upheld by News UK.


You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to.

- Humbert Wolfe, The Uncelestial City, 1930.

[lilelvis2000]

How do you know the police weren't on their way? They could have arrived one second after the point at which the video cut off, for all you can tell.

They can't be everywhere, and the whole situation seems to have escalated in about two minutes. It'd be nice if they could respond to every call in central London within two minutes, but I doubt it'd ever be possible unless the Met became the largest employer in the country.

fair point. Though if it had been one second one or two the perpetrators would have been nabbed.

[NickFitz]

Pretty clear that the person watching the CCTV and moving the camera didn't seem to sense a problem and call the cops in advance? If it was me I'd be on the horn telling the cops somethings going to go down.

Oh if only the cops were as smart as Kojak.

How do you know the police weren't on their way? They could have arrived one second after the point at which the video cut off, for all you can tell.

They can't be everywhere, and the whole situation seems to have escalated in about two minutes. It'd be nice if they could respond to every call in central London within two minutes, but I doubt it'd ever be possible unless the Met became the largest employer in the country.

[Spacecadet]

I see a pattern forming:
Four Lithuanians in court charged with murdering young Italian man Joele Leotta in Maidstone flat

[NickFitz]

Ah... so what you're saying is "you happen to be of a certain ethnic grouping, so it's right that the law treats crimes against you less seriously than if you belonged to a different ethnic group."

Really?

If you read what I said, it was the complete opposite of that.

[lilelvis2000]

they herded him into a corner, then surrounded him, agitated him. He ran they delivered a kicking. Looked awful like bullying to me.

Then they started laying their hands on him at about 30s, the thin guy with the baseball cap made jabbing movements in his face the Italian took exception and gestured to stop, grabbed the thin guy thinking he was the most dangerous in his way and tried to escape. They chased after him battered him to the ground then put the boot in.

I'm assuming the one with the pixelated face was under age.

Still against cctv in some cases?

Pretty clear that the person watching the CCTV and moving the camera didn't seem to sense a problem and call the cops in advance? If it was me I'd be on the horn telling the cops somethings going to go down.

Oh if only the cops were as smart as Kojak.

[vetran]

they herded him into a corner, then surrounded him, agitated him. He ran they delivered a kicking. Looked awful like bullying to me.

Then they started laying their hands on him at about 30s, the thin guy with the baseball cap made jabbing movements in his face the Italian took exception and gestured to stop, grabbed the thin guy thinking he was the most dangerous in his way and tried to escape. They chased after him battered him to the ground then put the boot in.

I'm assuming the one with the pixelated face was under age.

Still against cctv in some cases?

[lilelvis2000]

There is CCTV of it. It looks to me they they are talking to him fairly calmly and (around 48/49s) the guy who got beaten up makes a move, bottle (or is it a can?) in hand, at one of them.

Clearly stalking him and he tried to walk off and they beat him up. What they are saying doesn't look calm to me, looks like "you shouldn't be around here mate, how about a contribution to the mosque". As the attackers don't appear to be the religious type.

[doodab]

There is CCTV of it. It looks to me they they are talking to him fairly calmly and (around 48/49s) the guy who got beaten up makes a move, bottle (or is it a can?) in hand, at one of them.

[amcdonald]

The background to this is that last year clips were appearing on youtube of people being harrassed in the area by self appointed muslim patrols

Quite a while later various right wing blogs then picked up on this and started blogging about it

The nationals then picked up on it berating the police for doing nothing

After at least a year of this the police did actually arrest people

Now for some reason it's suddenly become news again, so is it a good day to bury bad news perhaps ?

It should be stopped, but I'm equally interested in why the press has a sudden interest in it again

[Ticktock]

you can stop feeling so put upon for being in a privileged majority.

Ah... so what you're saying is "you happen to be of a certain ethnic grouping, so it's right that the law treats crimes against you less seriously than if you belonged to a different ethnic group."

Really?

[doodab]

It's 'coz I'm not black, init?

I thought you were orange

[Churchill]

Obviously one can't trust the reporting because it's a Murdoch paper, but if it is in fact the case that the police haven't classed it as a hate crime (whatever that means: pretty sure the legal term is different) because they attacked him for being "not from around here", surely that's contradictory?

But as the source is a Murdoch paper it's very hard to know what to think, as all of the circumstances are undoubtedly wildly different from what was published.

For those jumping on the "I'm not racist but" bandwagon: my local police force categorises crimes as involving racial hatred ("hate crimes" in Murdoch-lackeyspeak) when the victims are White British and the perpetrators are not, and the racial difference has been a contributory factor in the crime. If the Met won't do so, that's down to them, not to the law of the land, so you can stop feeling so put upon for being in a privileged majority.

It's 'coz I'm not black, init?

[NickFitz]

Obviously one can't trust the reporting because it's a Murdoch paper, but if it is in fact the case that the police haven't classed it as a hate crime (whatever that means: pretty sure the legal term is different) because they attacked him for being "not from around here", surely that's contradictory?

But as the source is a Murdoch paper it's very hard to know what to think, as all of the circumstances are undoubtedly wildly different from what was published.

For those jumping on the "I'm not racist but" bandwagon: my local police force categorises crimes as involving racial hatred ("hate crimes" in Murdoch-lackeyspeak) when the victims are White British and the perpetrators are not, and the racial difference has been a contributory factor in the crime. If the Met won't do so, that's down to them, not to the law of the land, so you can stop feeling so put upon for being in a privileged majority.

[d000hg]

Would it be different if they wore paramilitary uniforms?

What, the Rangers fans? Not really, a self-appointed uniform is a self-appointed uniform I guess.