, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

[Image: Political Scrapbook.]

[Image: Political Scrapbook.]

Pathetic, isn’t it?

Thomas Mair killed Jo Cox in what her husband Brendan described as “an incompetent and self-defeating act of terrorism” and the Judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said was “carried out to advance a political cause of violent white supremacism, associated with Nazism”.

But The Sun and The Mirror want you to believe it was because his mother married a black man, and the Daily Mail would rather blame the phantom threat of immigrants taking his home.

What utter drivel.

There is no evidence that Mair’s family history contributed to his crime.

There is no evidence that his landlord – the local council – wanted to evict him. In fact, under the terms of his tenancy, it seems this was impossible.

It seems all three periodicals have become apologists for terrorism.

The Mail‘s dubious stance was compounded by the fact that it buried its report of the court’s verdict on page 30 of that day’s edition of the paper – an act that drew justified attention from LBC radio’s James O’Brien.

Speaking on his show, he said: “The Daily Mail has chosen to put the murder by a neo-Nazi of a serving British MP – and by her own husband’s account, a mother who put her children ahead of anything career-wise – on page 30.

“I don’t really understand why. Unless a murder by a neo-Nazi is less offensive to the sensibilities of the editor of this newspaper than a murder by a radical Islamist.

“Surely any fully-functioning moral compass would be equally disgusted by both.

“For people to use terror and death to pursue a political or an ideological goal in a civilised, peaceful society, it doesn’t matter what colour the killer is, does it?

“Or what religion they are? Or what ludicrous, violent ideology they are trying to pump. The point is it is violent. It’s ideological. White supremacy, radical Islam, they are both equally vile, equally repugnant.

“And yet, if this woman had been murdered by a Muslim? Page 30? You think?”

The Public Order Act 1986 is still in effect, is it not?

According to that Act, “A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.”

The articles discussed above were certainly likely to stir up racial hatred because of their abusive or insulting attitude towards people of colour and/or immigrants.

So when will the owners, editors and writers of these pieces be prosecuted?

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here: