Wednesday, 14 April 2010

How the anti-immigration agenda works

The Mail was running this story prominently on its website earlier today, the latest in a torrent of recent anti-immigration stories from the paper:

Although the Mail didn't name the girl, she was named in the Sun, Star and Express versions of the same story.

The Sun said:

A gang of immigrant yobs who molested a girl of 14 escaped prosecution - because it was 'not in the public interest'.

Ria George was 'mauled' by eight Slovakian gipsies aged between eight and 12.

The Star, under the headline 'Migrant gipsy boys mauled me but the courts did nothing' said:

A gang of gipsy boys who molested a 14-year-old girl have escaped prosecution because it is 'not in the public interest' to take them to court.

Ria George was walking to a pal’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakians, aged between eight and 12, who 'mauled' her in the street.

The Express went with 'No justice for girl molested by migrants':

A schoolgirl who was molested by a gang of east European boys says she has been 'treated like a liar' by the justice system, which has refused to prosecute her attackers.

Ria George was walking to a friend’s house when she was set upon by eight Slovakian louts who groped, touched and humiliated her in the street.

Several things stand out.

One is the prominence of the (alleged) offenders' (alleged) migrant status and/or race.

The Mail says they are from 'Slovakian gipsy' and 'Romany migrant' families who 'settled in the city [Coventry] in the late 1990s', although it's not clear how the paper knows this.

After all, if that timeline is right and if some of the boys are eight, they were probably born in the UK and aren't migrants at all.

So are they definitely Gypsies? Over at Mailwatch, 5CC reports that:

a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said.

This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.

Secondly, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems to have gone out of the window. It would be surprising if this wasn't related to the boys (allegedly) being migrants/Gypsies.

Thirdly, having made clear their view that this attack was definitely committed by migrants/Gypsies, the papers heavily imply that it is because they are migrants/Gypsies that the CPS is not moving forward with the case.

The CPS are accused of 'refusing' to prosecute because it would not be in the 'public interest'. This allowed a flood of comments to appear on the Mail website to complain about 'one rule for 'them'' and other such unpleasant, but predictable, views.

But later in the day, a slightly different view emerged from the CPS, although it was ignored by the nationals. The Evening Telegraph in Peterborough reported:

A gang of boys arrested on suspicion of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Coventry did not face charges because of a lack of evidence, prosecutors said...

The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two "tests" outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

He said: "The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

"If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test - the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.

"In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered."

Why is it this version is only reported in the local media?

Indeed, in the Coventry Telegraph's report on the case, there is no mention of the boys' race at all. So why did that become the focus when the story hit the four right-wing national tabloids?

And did they report on the case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

Well, the CPS also announced today that they would not prosecute anyone in the case of James Parkes, the trainee PC who was left with a fractured skull after being subject to a homophobic attack.


Detectives arrested 15 youths during the inquiry but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has now decided there is insufficient evidence to charge them.

So two assaults and two cases where the CPS doesn't prosecute because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

But the one allegedly committed by migrants/Gypsies gets reported in four anti-immigrant national newspapers.

The one committed by people of unknown race, where the victim is a gay man, gets ignored by those same four national newspapers.

So, that question again: did they report on the first case because they were concerned that a gang of youngsters were not being prosecuted for an assault, or because they thought there was an anti-immigration angle?

(For another take on the story, please read 5CC's article over at Mailwatch)


  1. That's definitely why this story was run and what it was trying to imply.

    Interestingly, the fascist Stormfront forum picked up on the article before it got to the Mail. One poster said straight away that it was a story surpressing the truth - that Asians were involved.

    Then another poster was disgusted that they had to wait until it appeared in the Mail to find out the kids were immigrants.

    Commenters on the Mail version got the message.

  2. Well done them. Another lurch on the road to authoritarianism.

  3. Read this in the Coventry telegraph yesterday and wasn't surprise to see the Daily Mails angle. Still seems strange that the immigrant conection revealed until it went national. Looking at the comments section on telegraphs website (iccoventry) one of the girls parents (perhaps?) has left a comment saying the Telegraph couldn't reveal all the details for legal reasons? They also confirm the immigrant angle, if they are indeed who they say they are. Worth a look.
    The Sun not only named her but had a posed for photo of the girl. Maybe just maybe the nationals could pay for more 'details' in exchange for their privacy?

  4. What a sad story, you can't help but feel for that girl and the gay guy. And how low (but unsurprising) of the Heil to turn this into another anti-immigrant tirade. Abuse is abuse, whoever perpetrates it.

    On the positive side, good work in exposing more lies. This blog should be compulsory reading for anyone who regularly buys these proto-fascist rags.

  5. not to derail too much, but it struck me that it was reported as sexual assault. in most cases of sexual assault reported in these papers lack of evidence to prosecute results in victim blaming and accusations of women lying about their attack. so long as they have someone to hate and blame, be it women or immigrants, they're happy. makes me so angry.

  6. great post. I wish DM readers would venture to blogs like this

  7. Whilst I agree that the anti-immigrant angle was the most likely reason for the difference in reporting prominence between the two stories, there are two other possible factors.

    One is that, as your anonyposter says, a gay person is perhaps less deserving of sympathy and more deserving of a street attack.

    But another is that they love to serve stories of young girls being attacked. Witness the coverage of Madeleine McCann, or Holly and Jessica, when other people disappear and get killed all the time with much less comment.

    That's not just about the vulnerability of children, but the presumed inability of females to take care of themselves and their need to be protected at al times.

  8. A message for Anonymous: 15 April 2010 00:24

    Oh how people like you love to speculate!
    One of the girl's parents DID post the comment you referred to, however, you should be extremely careful as to how you construct your words, because implying that we were 'paid' for our story could have you on slander & libel charges!
    Before you comment on things you know nothing about, you should gather all the facts before concluding your judgement! Instead of trying to portray yourself a the ever-so-helpful citizen misinforming the public with your false statements!
    When WE want people to know the FULL story, then WE'LL let you know, until then carry on amusing yourself with your 'fairytales' & just pray these people don't move into YOUR street & molest YOUR daughter!

  9. To sianandcrookedrib 15 April 2010 13:14

    It makes you angry? Well let's just change the whole world because you feel angry..whoope-doo! When you are the victim of an attack like this, let's see who believes your sorry ass!

  10. The difference in coverage could well be because the victim of homophobia has just gone about his business, where as the 14 year old has gone running to the papers.

    Under the sex offences act, you cannot name a victim. There's a whole host of stuff on not naming children.

    For her to have been named, she and her parents have to give written consent... and I wonder why any parent would push their child into the public eye as a victim of this kind of attack, unless there was some other motive. Is the urge for "justice" really that strong and do they really think the tabloids can get it for them?


  11. I read that they went down every avenue they could, but didn't get any help from anyone. The system let them & their daugter down..simple!

  12. The hypocricy here is astounding! Criticising some people for informing the public on the true nationality of the attackers, yet attempting to blame the attack on another race!
    five chinese crackers 14 April 2010 23:03
    '..One poster said straight away that it was a story surpressing the truth - that Asians were involved.'
    You're so uneducated to the situation it's actually laughable how you just make things up! There you all go with your assumations
    Asian people DID NOT have anything whatsoever to do with these attacks! On the contrary the asian community itself have offered much support following these attacks!
    Do you bigots have nothing better to do than SLANDER people all day long? five chinese crackers?..sounds like a cracker short of a take-away..also sounds like a traitor to their own race!

  13. It's terrible but sometimes cases cannot progress because of a lack of evidence.

    Turning that into this revolting agenda-laden race-hate lie ought to be criminal also.

  14. @AgainsttheEU:

    I know the attackers were not Asian - I've actually spoken to te CPS about this for my post on MailWatch about this.

    I mentioned the goons at Stormfront because of their instant assumptions that the attackers were foreign and getting the nationality spectacularly wrong. The assumptions that certain people have about stories like this might explain why the Mail ran with it putting so much emphasis on the boys being 'immigrants' or gypsies or Slovakian.

    "also sounds like a traitor to their own race!"

    I have no idea what that means.

  15. @AgainsttheEU:

    D00d, chill. You apparently made 2 presumptions with that last comment there: that "Five Chinese Crackers" is Asn, and that ethnic origin is highly influential on behaviour, as opposed to reasoned response to observed actions or communications.

    For someone calling bigot, you're bringing in stereotyping and "us-and-them" a bit hastily. and I think maybe reading a bit fast as well.

  16. To AgainstTheEu/NairobiGChild/AggrievedTaxPayer or whatever other name you want to use - your ranting comments have become increasingly incoherent and incomprehensible and in one of your comments you made a very serious accusation about someone identifiable. As that could be libellous, it was rejected.

    Having accused other people of libel, that's rather ironic.

    In one of the above comments you completely misunderstood what Five Chinese Crackers was saying, leading you to falsely accuse him of things in several sentences of drivel.

    The comment you left earlier today contained a link which didn't work, so there wasn't much point publishing that either.

    This post was never about whether the accusations made by the girl (your daughter, apparently) were true or not. Had you bothered to read it (or anything) properly you would have seen that. Since your comments have gone increasingly off-topic, there's little point you wasting your time writing anything else here.


Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.

Comments are moderated - generally to filter out spam and comments wishing death on people - but other messages will be approved as quickly as possible.