White is the new Black

WW Master Detective
Notice how ethnicity is no longer mentioned in crime reports? Perhaps it is because it is politicaly incorrect, or perhaps it is because ethnicity has no relevance or correlation to criminal activity (see Weasels passim). One thing is for sure though, if you are White, old and a bit strange, you are fair game. Remember Tony Martin, the guy who shot the burglars? He got longer in jail than most violent young thugs with guns get for shooting innocent people. And the surviving burglar sued for compensation.
The first story that irritated me was the one about the "spy" in the holdall. The mainstream media were salivating like po' traylor folks over a KFC bargain bucket. I won't rehearse the tawdry details, mainly because they are of no relevance to you and me whatsoever and the idea that the loved ones of this unfortunate man had to read all about it in some tit-filled rag upsets me more than it should.
The second story that followed hard upon was the Bristol archictect murder. You would think Bristol has had enough publicity since we learned that The Stig and Banksy are actually the same bloke.

We learned that someone was arrested. Fair enough, but this man was obviously "one of the usual suspects". A bit like being arrested for driving a smart car while being black. "Oh, yes", said Mrs Nosey Neighbour down the road, "He always used to recycle his carrier bags and uses too much Elnett. His finger nails were a bit on the long side and he had little devil horns growing out of his head and some say he can cause people to come out in boils". A white male, over 50? Never been married? God, I'm so confused - is he a poof or what?

My direct ancestor was executed as a witch in Salem, Mass. The evidence for her being a witch was more compelling than the utter poisoned tittle-tattle that has been allowed to circulate about the man who has been arrested in connection with the Bristol murder.

Shame on the British Press for deciding that, not only is this man guilty for being a fruitcake, he is guilty because he is white and over 50 and believe me, in today's world we appear to be the new black.


Jim Baxter said...

Good to see WW defending the principle that a man is innocent until found guilty by due process and not by the msm or the internet. What a difference a month makes. But is it just the month that's different?


Wrinkled Weasel said...

Well Jim, contrary to what some may think I actually think about what commenters have to say.

Having said that, in this case there is not one shred of evidence, even circumstantial, to link the accused with the victim.

Jim Baxter said...


I don't know if there is or not. My point, again, is that we should say nothing on any form of public record one way or the other before completion of a trial.

That applies to all of us and is for the best of all of us. Your comments on the other case were 'pub talk', out of order on a system of pubic record.

It's called the rule of law. You believe in that, don't you? You wouldn't prefer mob rule, would you?

Jim Baxter said...

'Pubic record' is what I meant, by the way. That wasn't a typo.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Mob rule? The "mob" got massacred at Peterloo for simply demanding to be able to vote. Hope lies with the proles.

We appoint judges to apply the rule of law. This means they allow convicted murderers and rapists to stay here and claim compensation for abuse of their human rights. These murderers and rapists are released and offend again and again. Judges mysteriously give fatuously tiny sentences to important people, such as Lord Ahmed. Nevermind Baroness Uddin, who currently enjoys freedom from prosecution for fraud due to being female and Muslim and the distinction of never having had a private sector job in her life.

Strangely the judge in the Ahmed case has form and strangely, he was great mates with the then home sec Jack Straw and had been a Labour appointed member of the Law Commission.


Keir Starmer's somewhat baroque application of justice did not bring the law into repute either.

The rule of law currently does not enjoy my confidence, especially since the law itself has attempted to destroy the spirit of that law by punishing the good and compensating the bad.

Frankly, I am ready to welcome the revolution.

Jim Baxter said...

We should not comment in print on cases before the courts. A blog counts as print. That's all.

Your last comment is irrelevant - spluttering, grandstanding, indirection.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

So, then, Jim Lad, when are you going to write a piece for the blog on the importance of the rule of law and the sanctity of due process?

Daddy said...

I'm right with you, WW. Visit my blog today and you can read the injunctions I was served with a year ago today. Rendered homeless indefinitely, stripped of my property, not to mention being separated from my son, and placed under the threat of prison for even talking to the aggressor who had lied to procure it all.

Innocent until proven guilty no longer applies in this country. We have every right to be appalled.

Have a read, Jim. Print out the injunction, write your name in the gaps and imagine it had just been put in your>your hand.

Yours is the grandstanding position, and it smacks of insufficient exposure to the world order you seek to protect.

Just count yourself lucky that you have been spared from it.

I hope you always will be - and will say that as loud as you like, any time you like. I hope someone would do it for me.

They came for the Jews...