I wrote: They now always announce the colour and nationality of the culprit, after they didn't do so in the case of the person who murdered three kids at a dance class in Southport. The fact that he was black led to online posts stating with no evidence at all that he was an illegal immigrant and that lead to serious rioting. In fact, he was a British citizen. Your response doesn't address that. I didn't write that there was no anger before the Southport attack. I wrote that the ethnicity of someone is now given - yes, always in what might be considered a racial or political attack, to prevent any unfounded rumours circulating online that generates rioting against innocent civilians. Those attacks are never against the people responsible for a crime, only those who might be of the same appearance, race or religion. If the 'radicalized, unstable boy' had been named as a British citizen the riots would probably not have occurred. Hence the change now used in clarifying the background of a suspect. No more being afraid to state it due to PC concerns, and no rioting by the more extreme members of the political Party she represented. Of course he should have been dealt with before the attack, as the enquiry showed. Everyone failed and has blood on their hands. His parents too, who were too afraid of the child they had raised to report his behaviour. I didn't write otherwise but you chose to refer to it in connection with my post. Perhaps you didn't understand it, which is why I've repeated it.
Create an account or sign in to comment