Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4653130.stm

Blair apologises to Soham parents  

Police chief's apology  

Metropolitan Police chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the parents of
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman for comments he made about the Soham
murders. 

Sir Ian told the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) on Thursday that
"almost nobody" could understand why it had become such a big story. 

He told the BBC on Friday he had not "intended to diminish the
significance of this dreadful crime". 

But he said there was "no doubt" race impacted on the news agenda. 

Sir Ian's comments came after he told the MPA meeting that the media was
institutionally racist in its reporting of murders. 

He told Radio 4's Today programme on Friday: "I obviously have to
unreservedly apologise to anyone connected to the Soham murders,
especially the parents of Holly and Jessica for re-igniting this story. 

"It was not intended to diminish the significance of this dreadful
crime, which is exactly how I described it yesterday. 

"But in the modern age we need the media to help solve crimes and I was
responding to a question raised about the differential response to
different murders and that led to an entirely legitimate discussion
about the difference between investigative needs and news values." 

Richard Barnes, chair of the MPA, said people had found the words
"insensitive and shocking". 

He told the BBC Sir Ian had seemed surprised by the reaction. 

Sir Ian made the original comments in response to a question about how
police dealt with murders. 

He said: "I am pretty furious. We do devote the same level of resources
to murders in relation to their difficulty. 

"What the difference is, is how these are reported. I actually believe
that the media is guilty of institutional racism in the way they report
deaths." 

He cited the coverage of the murders of white lawyer Tom ap Rhys Pryce
and Asian builders' merchant Balbir Matharu. 

Sir Ian conceded there were some exceptions such as the way 10-year-old
Damilola Taylor's death was reported. 

Mr Barnes said he had spoken to Sir Ian on Thursday evening. 

He said: "He couldn't understand that this one became the biggest story
in Britain - well I can. 

"It was two little girls who got murdered, who were missing, who were
reported missing for 10 days by their local police." 

Mr Barnes said he believed there was balance in the press with papers on
the left and right covering different stories. 

He went on: "The phrase institutional racism is so bandied about these
days and so readily bandied about that it is beginning to undervalue
itself and is beginning to undervalue racism itself." 

Mr Barnes told BBC News 24 that even though Sir Ian had apologised he
still thought he needed to clarify his remarks. 

"For an incredibly high-ranking member of the establishment to make such
a broad grasping statement, either he's got to have evidence for it or
he hasn't got evidence for it," he said. 

"I can think of a whole range of murders that have been reported which
have involved black children - all of these have been reported."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.

For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
-- 
Mr X

Mr X wrote:
> Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT  
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4653130.stm
> 
> Blair apologises to Soham parents  
> 
> Police chief's apology  
> 

> 
> Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
> sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
> before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
> 
> For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
> Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
> reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

I think he has got a point tho, white murders invariably appear to gain 
more column inches and days coverage than ethnic ones.

The little boys body found in the Thames only got some interest because 
of the alleged witchcraft angle.

You might also say that ethnic murders only seem to be highlighted when 
done by their own race, as if to say 'look what they do to each other'
Whites killing ethnic murders are covered much more discreetly.


Nothing seems to have changed since the 'Not the Nine O'clock News' 
sketch of 'Plane crash in Africa, no British died, Earthquake in India, 
one Brit sprained a thumb'

Sharky wrote:
> Mr X wrote:
>> Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4653130.stm
>>
>> Blair apologises to Soham parents
>>
>> Police chief's apology
>>
>
>>
>> Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>> sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>> before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>
>> For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>> Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>> reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
>
> I think he has got a point tho, white murders invariably appear to
> gain more column inches and days coverage than ethnic ones.
>
Agreed.
If the victim is pretty and white they are more likely to be the subject of 
national hand-wringing.
-- 
Alex

Sig on old laptop - new one coming soon.
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

On 27 Jan 2006 05:47:02 -0600, Mr X  wrote:

<snip>
>
>Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>

He did have his facts pretty well correct.

The way in which he expressed them, particularly in regard to the
Soham case was crass and insensitive.

But I think we have all seen that murders of whites by non whites does
seem to get more column inches than the reverse.

>For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Even if the official branding of the police were recent, it still
wouldn't be hypocritical. Just because one organisation has faults
does not mean they cannot point out similar faults in others.

I *do* think that Blair should go, but not because he was factually
wrong, or hypocritical.

He should go because he seems to have a habit of expressing things in
ways that cause offense, and as the public face of the police in
London, it is vital that he be able to talk to the media without doing
that.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Paranoia is nothing to be afraid of!!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Sharky wrote:
>> Mr X wrote:
>>> Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4653130.stm
>>>
>>> Blair apologises to Soham parents
>>>
>>> Police chief's apology
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>>> sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>>> before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>>
>>> For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>>> Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>>> reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
>>
>> I think he has got a point tho, white murders invariably appear to
>> gain more column inches and days coverage than ethnic ones.
>>
> Agreed.
> If the victim is pretty and white they are more likely to be the subject 
> of
> national hand-wringing.

More so then, if the perp is white, the victim black????? We have had some 
hugely disproportionate reporting on such cases, but when it is reversed, 
the coverage is sheepish.

Gaz

In article <43da0ae6$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
 writes

>"Mr X"  wrote in message
>news:Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net...
>> Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT
>
>> Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>> sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>> before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>
>> For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>> Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>> reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
>
>I have a fair amount of sympathy for his remarks, I too think that often the
>press and TV do pay far too much attention to some crimes and far too little
>to others. I think the coverage of Soham was excessive, and was probably
>unhelpful to both the police and the families. There is also a considerable
>amount of selectivity in the reporting of potentially racist crimes and I
>would never suggest that his suggestion tat there was instructional racism
>in another organisation was hypocrisy.

Ok. I am sure you realise by now I often say things like that to try to
stimulate a lively debate...

>Our press today is often far more involved in the creation of news than the
>news itself, factual reporting is becoming less and less evident and the
>promotion of opinion is becoming far more common.

Yes, I agree, but do you think this might be because of the wall-to-wall
news coverage nowadays with 100+ channel TV?

Or to put it another way, there is only so much factual reporting in any
one day, so opinion has to expand to fill the remaining 18 hours?

I'm sure you've seen the media "feeding-frenzy" on the sat-news channels
when any "real" news breaks.

Something like the recent Hemel Hempstead fire must be like a gift from
heaven for Sky News and BBC News 24

>Of course the press have had a field day with Sir Ian, and I am sure he must
>have realised that they would he after all did the unforgivable attacked
>them. How long before he is set up with a woman as was Mellor or something
>similar. They have a habit of getting their own back with a real vengeance.

I hope Ian Blair will learn to keep silent. It was his Police Authority
that made him apologise.
-- 
Mr X

In article , Alex Heney
 writes

All your comments noted. Thanks

>He should go because he seems to have a habit of expressing things in
>ways that cause offense, and as the public face of the police in
>London, it is vital that he be able to talk to the media without doing
>that.

I agree, like I said before he seems to often use mouth without brain
being properly engaged.
-- 
Mr X

In article , Sharky 
writes

>I think he has got a point tho, white murders invariably appear to gain 
>more column inches and days coverage than ethnic ones.

Strangely enough, a few posters to uk.legal claim it is the other way
around.

I suppose it very much depends upon one's own personal viewpoints (and
prejudices).
-- 
Mr X

"Gaz"  wrote in news:43uinvF1ntubuU1@individual.net:

....
> 
> More so then, if the perp is white, the victim black????? We have had
> some hugely disproportionate reporting on such cases, but when it is
> reversed, the coverage is sheepish.

For starters ... 

David Ackley 
Catherine Ayling 
Paul Carter 
Michael Dooher 
Richard Everitt 
Christopher Farrel 
Phillip Gosling 
Brian Harvey 
Peter Harvey 
Terry May 
Albert Marriner 
Hugh McCallum 
James McParland 
Mark Sharp 
Janie Shepherd 
Andrew Steventon 
Louie Wade 
Danny Westmacott 
Gary Wilmer 
Wade Hewitt

.... and I'm sure folks can think of plenty more, well perhaps they can't 
because they never hit the headlines so perhaps gobsite is correct, the 
press and polcie are institutionally racist (whatever bollocks that means) 
but perhaps not in the way he expects us to think.


-- 
Regards or otherwise,

Periander

Mr X wrote:
> In article , Sharky 
> writes
>
>> I think he has got a point tho, white murders invariably appear to
>> gain more column inches and days coverage than ethnic ones.
>
> Strangely enough, a few posters to uk.legal claim it is the other way
> around.
>
Yup, the ones whose habitual home is uk.politics.misc, which is pretty much 
a hotbed of Nazism.

This bloke is a total prick, obviously some killings will get massive
coverage while others get next to nothing. The Soham case attracted
massive publicity for several reasons. If you remember it didn't start
as a murder case but as a missing persons or abduction case; they even
got David Beckham to appeal for the girls to come home. Obviously when
Huntley was in the frame there was a lot of publicity, and they spent
two months taking his house apart, they literally dismantled it brick
by brick.


The 1986 murder of Clarke Pearce attracted hardly any coverage; until I
set up my website about his murderer Satpal Ram, all most people "knew"
was that he was a "racist" who probably deserved it.

I could cite dozens or hundreds of others. I see though he didn't
complain about the coverage given to the murder of WPC Sharon
Beshenevsky. Perhaps if  our chief cuntstables expended fewer resources
brainwashing their troops with"racism awareness training" they would
have sent a proper armed response to that hold up in Bradford instead
of two unarmed women officers, one of them a trainee. And this murder
wouldn't have happened.

What a total prick

In message <Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net>, Mr X  
writes

>
>Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>
>For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

I think it is a disgrace that Blair has been forced to apologise for 
saying something that was at worst fair comment and in my view actually 
self-evidently true.

To paraphrase what he said, taking account of the context in a way his 
accusers have not, he said that there are plenty of murders just as 
awful as that one, so there is no objective good reason why that crime 
in particular should have generated that much more coverage. I agree 
entirely; indeed, I think I have said as much on this group in the past.

But he should know by now that if you criticise any little thing about 
the press, they will tear you to shreds.

Shame, Mr X, to see a usually level-headed realist like you falling for 
tabloid journalistic attitudes.
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller  wrote in 
news:+odY0WaiHi2DFwDD@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:

> In message <Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net>, Mr X  
> writes
> 
>>
>>Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>>sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>>before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>
>>For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>>Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>>reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
> 
> I think it is a disgrace that Blair has been forced to apologise for 
> saying something that was at worst fair comment and in my view actually 
> self-evidently true.

Strange, but I thought the exact opposite, that black victims get far more 
publicity pound for pound than white victims. Likewise race crime "black on 
white" is almost never mentioned whereas the reverse is almost never out of 
the press. Of course I speak from London where "black on white" is a daily 
event whereas down in (say) Gravesend the focus with the large traveller 
community and very few vems will be entirely different.

Of course from my pov this is a discussion that Blair shouldn't even be 
entering in to. Once he starts to delve in to the relm of politics it is in 
my view self evident that he will alienate large sections of the community 
and that police/courts and even solicitors in private practice (as part fo 
teh "establishment") will be tarred with the same brush. The oath used to 
go "Without fear or favour ..." which should mean everyone gets the same 
treatment. Blair is widly regarded as being anti-white, anti conservative 
(small 'c'), pro-state and so forth with this kind of public persona he 
can't possibly be able to claim to acting without "fear or favour".

-- 
Regards,

Periander

"Mr X"  wrote in message 
news:Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net...
> Friday, 27 January 2006, 11:30 GMT
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4653130.stm

I challenge anyone, on either side of the debate, to provide evidence for 
the media bias that they claim to perceive.

Was your dad constantly in trouble with the police or something?  Why are 
you always having a go at them?  You never give evidence, you just 
emotionally spout off without substance.

"Richard Miller"  wrote in message 
news:+odY0WaiHi2DFwDD@seasalter0.demon.co.uk...
> In message <Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net>, Mr X  writes
>
>>
>>Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>>sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>>before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>
>>For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>>Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>>reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
>
> I think it is a disgrace that Blair has been forced to apologise for 
> saying something that was at worst fair comment and in my view actually 
> self-evidently true.
>
> To paraphrase what he said, taking account of the context in a way his 
> accusers have not, he said that there are plenty of murders just as awful 
> as that one, so there is no objective good reason why that crime in 
> particular should have generated that much more coverage. I agree 
> entirely; indeed, I think I have said as much on this group in the past.

So what? The papers will print what will sell, It may not be balanced and 
some may not like it but that is what a free media means. All of the media 
in this country is geared towards making money, not reporting things the way 
the state or Mr I Blair would like.

Mr Blair should keep his sodding mouth shut about insignificant crap like 
this and should turn his attention to the rising amount of violent crime. An 
amount which would increase where I to stumble across Mr Blair as I kick his 
face in.

>
> But he should know by now that if you criticise any little thing about the 
> press, they will tear you to shreds.

He should be torn to shreds because, maybe, Mr Blair is using the political 
tool of attacking the press to deflect the rising crime figures?

>
> Shame, Mr X, to see a usually level-headed realist like you falling for 
> tabloid journalistic attitudes.
> -- 
> Richard Miller

Richard Miller  wrote in
news:m2W+DMqIZQ3DFwpa@seasalter0.demon.co.uk: 

....
>>Of course I speak from London where "black on white" is a daily
>>event whereas down in (say) Gravesend the focus with the large
>>traveller community and very few vems will be entirely different.
> 
> Are you saying that black on white crime is not a daily occurrence in 
> Gravesend? ...

Just seeing how far you'd bite.

Seriously though, you haven't been to slow in the past to complain about 
police officers stepping in to the limelight and using the media for 
political puposes - quite outside thier remit, and yet this time around ...



-- 
Regards,

Periander

To say the corporate media represents a balanced and truthful view of
events it the same as saying the police are not racist, sexist, and
homophobic!

k

Ken wrote:
> To say the corporate media represents a balanced and truthful view of
> events it the same as saying the police are not racist, sexist, and
> homophobic!
>
> k

The press, especially the BBC have had a tendancy to vastly over compensate 
on some issues. Race based crime where the perp is white often get huge 
coverage, but a sheepish silence exists when it is the other way around.

Gaz

More importantly the corporate media remain silent on rather more
serious issues! The murder of Dr David Kelly and the prescence of WMDs
in Iraq, are 2 things that spring to mind immediately.

k

In message , Periander 
 writes
>Richard Miller  wrote in
>news:+odY0WaiHi2DFwDD@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message <Ea+dzDAneg2DFwGi@privacy.net>, Mr X 
>> writes
>>
>>>
>>>Ian Blair must be so arrogant he really believes the crap he spouts
>>>sometimes. Perhaps he should remember the old maxim: "Engage brain
>>>before opening mouth" and make sure he has his facts correct as well.
>>>
>>>For the head of an organisation officially branded "Institutionally
>>>Racist" to accuse the media of being "institutionally racist in its
>>>reporting of murders" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
>>
>> I think it is a disgrace that Blair has been forced to apologise for
>> saying something that was at worst fair comment and in my view actually
>> self-evidently true.
>
>Strange, but I thought the exact opposite, that black victims get far more
>publicity pound for pound than white victims. Likewise race crime "black on
>white" is almost never mentioned whereas the reverse is almost never out of
>the press.

I was actually commenting on the disproportionate coverage of Soham 
rather than specifically the comment about racism, but I do think that 
racist attitudes, whether inherent in the media or because the media 
reflects the prejudices of their readers, do play a part.


>Of course I speak from London where "black on white" is a daily
>event whereas down in (say) Gravesend the focus with the large traveller
>community and very few vems will be entirely different.

Are you saying that black on white crime is not a daily occurrence in 
Gravesend? I think and hope you are right, because given the huge Sikh 
population there, it would be indicative that the claims of racist 
crimes by immigrant communities can be just as overblown as any other 
element of this debate.
-- 
Richard Miller

In message , Periander 
 writes

>Seriously though, you haven't been to slow in the past to complain about
>police officers stepping in to the limelight and using the media for
>political puposes - quite outside thier remit, and yet this time around ...

I have complained about police officers stepping into the limelight to 
try to undermine a Court verdict of not guilty. Not the same thing at 
all, as it is misconduct that would tend to impact directly upon the 
public's trust in the system of justice in this country.
-- 
Richard Miller

Richard Miller  wrote in
news:LbHlYw$Nro3DFwua@seasalter0.demon.co.uk: 

> In message , Periander 
>  writes
....
> 
> I have complained about police officers stepping into the limelight to
> try to undermine a Court verdict of not guilty.

I thought that the last one at least was a questionable scentence handed 
down after a contested trial in a serious case?

> Not the same thing at 
> all, as it is misconduct that would tend to impact directly upon the 
> public's trust in the system of justice in this country.

More so than the most senior police officer in the country amking it appear 
that he is more concerned about the colour of peoples skins and how the 
rest of us react to that colour rather than actually fighting crime? Or 
perhaps you meant the most senior police officer in the country virtually 
electioneering for a political party during the last elections, or perhaps 
you mean the most senior police officer in the country insisting that we 
should have to prove our ID at the drop of a hat and that the ability to be 
able to soon on all and sundry is necessary to fight terrorism?

Sorry but a DCI walking out of court saying that he's dissapointed with a 
scentence pales into insignificance.

Incidently I was in Gravesend today, (I've had to visit around once a month 
for professional reasons for the past half year or so) as always the 
streets appeared entirely unpaved with blood. I like it, it's quiet, safe 
place to put people.

-- 
Regards,

Periander

In message , Periander 
 writes
>Richard Miller  wrote in
>news:LbHlYw$Nro3DFwua@seasalter0.demon.co.uk:
>
>> In message , Periander
>>  writes
>...
>>
>> I have complained about police officers stepping into the limelight to
>> try to undermine a Court verdict of not guilty.
>
>I thought that the last one at least was a questionable scentence handed
>down after a contested trial in a serious case?

Possibly. Either way, it was to do with officers trying to undermine the 
Court process.

>
>> Not the same thing at
>> all, as it is misconduct that would tend to impact directly upon the
>> public's trust in the system of justice in this country.
>
>More so than the most senior police officer in the country amking it appear
>that he is more concerned about the colour of peoples skins and how the
>rest of us react to that colour rather than actually fighting crime?

Much more so, yes.

> Or
>perhaps you meant the most senior police officer in the country virtually
>electioneering for a political party during the last elections, or perhaps
>you mean the most senior police officer in the country insisting that we
>should have to prove our ID at the drop of a hat and that the ability to be
>able to soon on all and sundry is necessary to fight terrorism?

These are blatantly party political matters where he should have STFU. 
So again, not the same at all as his comments about media bias and lack 
of proportion.

>
>Sorry but a DCI walking out of court saying that he's dissapointed with a
>scentence pales into insignificance.

Compared with these other examples, perhaps. Not compared with the 
example that was actually under discussion.

>
>Incidently I was in Gravesend today, (I've had to visit around once a month
>for professional reasons for the past half year or so) as always the
>streets appeared entirely unpaved with blood. I like it, it's quiet, safe
>place to put people.
>


Agreed. I worked there for eight years, and never had a problem with the 
place.
-- 
Richard Miller