The Birmingham stabbings last night saw one man dead and eight others injured, two critically, including a woman who was repeatedly stabbed in the neck. But as we read the BBC report of the incident earlier today, our revulsion at the incident turns to incredulity and disgust at the police reaction.
Chief Superintendent Steve Graham reassured us that ‘we are doing everything we can do to trace the offender’, including ‘detailed searches’, and even ‘people going down drains’. Yet this all-out effort to catch the perpetrator did not extend to issuing a description, despite detailed witness descriptions having been provided to the police. Only CCTV footage would do – this finally being released this evening, 18 hours after the attacks, confirming the witness descriptions to the letter. Why the delay?
We turn to Sky News and hear bar owner Savvas Sfrantziz, who witnessed the stabbing of the woman from 20 yards away, describe the man, and all becomes clear. He was, ‘a black guy between 20 and 25, wearing a black hoodie with two white stripes on the front, black trousers and a black cap’. Not much room for mistaken identity here – nor, one suspects, in the descriptions provided by the two men who chased after the perpetrator, and even exchanged words with him later in the street.
We knew it all along. The police are guided by one overriding imperative: to avoid causing offence and reinforcing negative stereotypes of BAME victims of historic injustice and institutional white racism. And ‘Black man kills white man’ does not quite do the trick. But you can watch Savvas Sfrantziz describing the perpetrator in precise detail before your very eyes:
So, the perpetrator was at large for 18 hours, no doubt ready to continue his rampage if the random impulse took him, but no description was to be issued the public because the perpetrator was black.
The Chief Superintendent continued: ‘It does appear to be a random attack because we haven’t found any links between the victims, either in their nature or in where they were socialising’. Their nature? That is a curious choice of word. Was it possible that the perpetrator was targeting introverts or extraverts, the placid or the excitable, the thoughtful or the impulsive? Or, more likely, was the officer hamstrung by fear of referring to race or ethnicity, and thereby committing a hate crime of his own?
Then we hear that there is no evidence that the stabbings were ‘a hate crime’. Now, what in God’s name does this mean? Are we seriously supposed to believe that there was no motive, that the stabbings were random acts (‘I’ll just stab that woman over there’)? Or, more likely, are we meant to be relieved that the stabbings do not fall into that heinous category of acts in which racism is judged the motive – for example, when the white perpetrator utters the wrong word and, consciously or unconsciously, causes offence to a BAME victim? Murder, rape, pillage to your heart’s content, but so long as it is not construed a ‘hate crime’, we can all rest easy.
No one can doubt the vigour and conspicuous virtue with which the ruling liberal establishment are going about realising their multicultural dream and expiating their colonial sins. But the message to the White English grows louder and clearer by the day: ‘We will destroy your culture, your settled communities, your way of life. We will not protect you, or your children, on the streets. You are on your own.’