Sunday, January 21, 2007

More Fun With The BBC

Didn't I tell you that a Liberal slander squad would be scrambled? Once a judge outed himself a sane, it was only a matter of time before Liberals slimed him. Needless to say, first in line is the BBC with this remarkably mendacious report.

Reading the BBC's report you could be convinced that the accused was charged because, to quote the injured party,” he lunged at me and I had to retreat from the cell so the police made the decision to charge him”. Gosh - who could object to the police charging a guy who does that? Clearly, the judge must be some kind of racist himself, right?

Except, let's - since you won't hear this from the BBC - look at exactly what the judge said:
Any reading of what was actually said in court would make it clear that the potential seriousness of what occurred was that a police surgeon was threatened with violence and non-racial abuse to the extent that he decided he needed to leave the cell to which he had been called. This amounted to an assault, but this was not the offence charged.
“A gratuitous single piece of racist abuse was uttered as the surgeon left. This was the charge on which the full weight of the law had been brought to bear. My comments were not intended to make light of racist remarks.
Or, to spell it out for any Liberals reading, the judge was specifically questioning why the police had not prosecuted this obvious, blatant case of assault while bending over backwards to prosecute over a single word. To put it another way, the BBC report makes no sense whatsoever. The victim claims the assailant should have been charged over the assault, while the judge claimed the assailant should have been charged over the assault. The ‘abused surgeon’ was hitting back at the judge by agreeing with him.

Let's not beat around the bush here, anyone reading the BBC report alone would be left with the impression that the judge didn't think an assault on a police surgeon was any big thing. On the contrary, the whole point of the judge's speech was that the assault should have been prosecuted more vigorously than the supposed hate speech offence. You may, or may not, think hate crimes laws are a good idea, but to try and smear a man who criticises hate speech prosecution are somehow supporting actual violence is beyond sleazy. Maybe Liberals will defend it as just the way politics is but guess what, they just got through telling us that the BBC was unbiased. So which is it?

No comments: