The crime in question was in fact carried about by three perpetrators (plus a getaway driver) - one wearing a burkha and two who weren't, but had their face covered in other ways. And yet the burkha is the sole focus of the story. Why would that be...?
The Mail first reported this story on Tuesday. On Wednesday it discovered that two travel agents had been robbed by someone in a burkha and so wrote about it all again. With no new details emerging, why is this story still on the Mail website homepage on Thursday - and not only that, but is still one of their larger two column trails:
Why would this article be on the front page for three days running? Because the Mail is trying its very best to make it seem that people in burkhas can not be trusted.
One of the comments reads:
You know when these burqas will get banned in this country? When hundreds of people have died from a bomb attack (i.e. when it's TOO LATE). Only then will the goverment act. Stolen jewels are not nearly enough to trigger a reaction from them. Bravo indeed, Great Britain.
- P, London UK, 26/8/2009 11:53
So there you have it - burkhas = terrorists.
The idea that robbers cover their faces while committing a crime seems to be big news to the Mail. Are they going to write inflammatory articles about balaclavas and stockings, and how they have no place in Britain? Should we also ban clown's outfits so nobody copies Bill Murray's heist in Quick Change?Some of the comments have suggested banning the burkha, like the French President wants to do - in which case, robbers will dress in drag, and then there will have to be calls to ban other types of women's clothing too.
Posts
If they're wearing burqhas, aren't they technically in drag anyway?
ReplyDeleteI try very hard not to even look at the Daily Mail as it brings me out in a rash, but when I saw that headline my immediate thought was 'Well, people dress up as nuns, priests and policement to commit crime, but nobody wants to ban them!'.
ReplyDelete