The BBC is baffled why a man would slaughter his own family. The closest we get to an explanation is
this:
Speaking after the hearing, Det Supt Martin Bottomley, who led the investigation, said:
....
"We will probably never know why Arshad committed this awful crime, unless he chooses to tell us."
Except it turns out that
les flicks have said quite a bit
more than that.
POLICE investigating the deaths believe it may have been a so-called “honour killing”, where people, usually women in certain Asian communities, are murdered for bringing “shame” on their families. Children are sometimes murdered along with their mother because of their association with her shame.
So were these deaths another case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome ? Well, there's loonies all over the map, but there sure seems to be a cluster round one point. Bottom line: the BBC has no qualms about ascribing racial motives to crimes on even the flimsiest grounds, but now suddenly they're
Gil Grissom, dealing only with hard evidence ?
A vote of thanks too for the femiloons. They must still be drained after fighting so hard to deal with really serious issues, like the prize money at Wimbledon. Either that, or we've finally found a way to silence their idiot yammering.
Are we sure there isn't some kind of Heisenberg effect here ? The BBC would no doubt claim that they are merely the sewer not the sewerage, but isn't this kind of coy, minimalist reporting of brutal violence part of the problem ? Isn't there at least some truth in the old line that 'silence = consent' ? And shouldn't a multi-billion pound operation be asking these questions itself ?