A young Indian immigrant is stabbed to death at a bus stop in what police describe as a "racial attack". Subsequently, an unemployed 19 year old thug is charged with the murder; he today pleaded not guilty, and will go on trial in November.
So, why haven't we heard more about this? Why hasn't the story of the crime been plastered all over the MSM? Why has the BBC hidden the story away in a remote bit of the 'England' section?
An answer suggests itself when one looks at the defendant's name: Kamuzu Monroe. Now, I can't imagine that there are many white men named Kamuzu. And the few newspaper reports on this racist murder seem unusually coy about mentioning Monroe's own race. Whereas if the defendant in such cases is white, that fact normally seems to get mentioned in every other sentence. Finally, via the Crimes against British Sikhs blog, I find that Monroe is, indeed, black.
This murder would be no more or less vile if it had been carried out by whites. But you can bet whatever you like that it would have got a lot more publicity. Because, in the narrative favoured by the MSM, not only can whites never be victims of racism (hence the suppression of the news of the murders of Kriss Donald, Charlene Downes, et al), but only whites can ever be racist (hence the deafening silence that has greeted this murder, and also, in an example of Pakistani-on-black crime, the murder of Isaiah Young-Sam). Now, to me, this sounds rather like, to use a stock phrase of the liberal-left, "demonising an entire community". Not very responsible of them, is it? Indeed, given that it is apparently the case that most blacks and Asians convicted of racist crime against whites attempt to justify their crimes on the basis that they are getting revenge for all the supposed evils that the racist whites have inflicted upon them, is it unrealistic to suggest that the MSM has blood on its hands?