Talk:Murder of Kriss Donald/Archive 1

BBC coverage
Regarding the repeated accusations that the BBC stopped covering the murder - is there any proof for this outside of the BNP/far right websites? Looking at the BBC News website, that clearly continued to cover the story. Average Earthman 11:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The "accusation" stated that the BBC had ceased to report on the case on their "Nationwide broadcasts" after it was established that the crime was racially motivated, which is 100% accurate. They chose to confine the case to regional Scottish bulletins and their website. I have corresponded with a BBC News Editor about this and it is completely true so stop editing the page with your ignorant leftist Guardianista view of things. Guardian Sickness 01:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I said, is there any proof. Proof isn't just some new user coming in and saying "I say so". Also, it's called "news", which means they need new stories - if nothing has changed from the last nights news, why do they need to say it again every night? It isn't "inexplicable" just because a facsist website says it is. There needs to be some proof that someone other than a far-right wing group with a clear agenda is saying there was something abnormal about the BBC coverage. The Stephen Lawrence case is a bad comparison, because in that case the case against those publicly accused collapsed, and the whole situation attracted far more attention in the wide press - it was the Daily Mail who named the accused, not the Guardian. In this case they know who did it, one has been tried and sentenced already and the others have been extradited back to the UK to face justice. As for political bias, well others keep editing the page with their BNP view of things. Average Earthman 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, the proof is that I have corresponded with a BBC News editor, who even sent me the transcript of the last BBC News report on the case which was broadcast on BBC One. You are welcome to contact the BBC like I have to confirm that they did not cover the case on their national bulletins once it was discovered that the case was a racially motivated murder of a white child by Asians. This is not an accusation of the "Far-right" as you would like it to be, It is a plain substantiated fact, evidenced by BBC broadcasts in 2004, which you seemingly missed. As for comparisons, how about a better comparison, which you might explain, between the Anthony Walker and Kriss Donald cases? In the light of the disparity of coverage between these "hate crimes", which the BBC tells us are more worthy of coverage than other murders, the lack of coverage clearly is "inexplicable" until such time as the BBC provide an explanation for an unprecedented suppression of a newsworthy child murder case in their broadcasts. Guardian Sickness 00:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is an accusation of the far-right until you can demonstrate someone other than a far-right party (and if over 95% of the voting electorate votes for parties to the left of yours, your far-right) has made the accusation. Again, your 'proof' is that you say you have proof, and that is not verifiable. And finally, the Lawrence and Walker cases are exceptional, and this isn't an "unprecendented suppression" of anything. Most racist murders don't even get a day on the national news. And what justification have you for deleting the facts that the suspects have been extradited back to the UK?15 year olds murdered in UK with little media coverage. Rolan Adams, Navid Sadiq, Rohit Duggal, Manish Patel, Imran Khan. Average Earthman 10:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're now so desperate you've taken to listing any murder of an ethnic minority by a white offender, presumably as a racially motivated murder which received little coverage. Rolan Adams had plenty of coverage, I charge you to provide evidence to the contrary, just like I can do by forwarding my correspondence regarding the Kriss Donald case from the BBC if you wish to give me your e-mail address.

Imran Khan's murder is not even considered to be racially motivated by "Anti Facist campaigners" http://www.carf.demon.co.uk/feat12.html

There was seemingly no proof that Rohit Duggal was killed in a racially motivated attack, only an allegation made at a police station that the killer was a member of a racist gang, second rate evidence you would certainly reject if the victim was white.

On investigating what appeared to be a racially motivated crime police later found the Manish Patel case to have been caused by bullying rather than racial motivation. See the Guardian for that info. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lawrence/Story/0,2763,208684,00.html

Navid Sadiq's killer was found to have made racist comments after killing an Asian youth in a robbery, but that is far from evidence of racial motivation.

The problem you have is that the Guardian and their list of racially motivated crimes come directly from "Anti racist" campaign groups who list any murder as a racially motivated murder "known or suspected" even when there is absolutely no proof bar their suspicion. http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/november/ak000002.html Again, this is evidence you would certainly not accept from the "far-right" so why try to use halfwit information from the far-left??

Why not provide evidence for your claims of the lack of coverage of racially motivated murders of ethnic minorities if you have any? Again, I can offer you correspondence I have had with the BBC showing the text of the last report on the Kriss Donald case to appear on their National News bulletin on BBC One. You are a Guardianista dimwit and are engaging in bahaviour you would call extreme if someone else had done exactly the same as you by listing murders of whites by ethnic minorities and claiming they were racially motivated without proof.

"And what justification have you for deleting the facts that the suspects have been extradited back to the UK?". If I did it was unintentional.

Lastly, what is exceptional about the Anthony Walker case that is not exceptional about the Kriss Donald case? Guardian Sickness 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC on NPOV
I think the article is mostly okay. I take issue with the word "inexplicably" regarding BBC coverage, as it implies that the BBC are engaging in unorthodox or atypical behavior. They may well be, but it would be necessary to cite authoritative sources who also believe this. Personal emails from Beeb types fall under the heading of "original reserach," which is against WP policy. Also, sentences like The murderers are the first people to be convicted of racially motivated murder in Scotland, using the word "murderer," skate very close to the POV line, if not over it. IronDuke 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ironduke, well I never added the term murderers although I cannot see the problem as they are convicted murderers. I have removed the word inexplicably although I also disagree with your assessment of some implied meaning. The word is defined as something "difficult to explain", which is obviously the case, as the BBC editor I corresponded with could not and would not explain the lack of coverage of the Kriss Donald case, despite at first attempting to do so. However, since this falls under "original research" I take your point. However my main issue is with "Average Earthman" who obviously sees the middle ground as being along the lines of the Guardian and Institute of race relations slant on racially motivated murders, which is actually far to the left of the middle, and on many points, including the cases he listed above, seriously flawed. Guardian Sickness 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Three suspects were arrested in Pakistan in July 2005 and extradited to the UK in October 2005" Why are you deleting this fact? Does it conflict with your agenda? 128.243.220.42 11:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Guardian Sickness, you appear to be extreme to the right. I'd put myself centre-left (by the descriptions Wikipedia uses for the parties that I have voted for, and judging by electoral success I'm rather closer to the centre than he is, and there's no way I'm standing for being put in the same category as George Galloway). Wikipedia also calls the BNP far-right, so there's nothing inconsistent with my describing the BNP as far-right rather than right. The dropping of the coverage on the main TV programmes by the BBC isn't impossible to explain - news broadcasts do drop stories down the agenda after several days, particularly when other stories come up. The BBC dropping a story in Scotland for one in London isn't exceptional in the slightest, as many Scots regularly complain. As for the use of the word murderer, a murderer is one who has been convicted of murder. In my opinion, this phrase will apply as non-POV once more than one person has been convicted of murdering Kriss Donald. However, this has not yet happened. Once this has, describing them as 'convicted murderers' would be accurate. The MSPs who wrote the letter condemning the BNP visit were not all members of the Scottish Socialist Party, and as Wikipedia describes the SNP as centre-left, describing the signatories as socialist MSPs is inconsistent. Not all the community signatories were Asian, so using the term "asian community leaders" is incorrect. Average Earthman 12:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all you completely avoided my question. What is exceptional about the Anthony Walker case that is not exceptional about the Kriss Donald case. What exactly is this exceptional justification for the clear disparity in coverage you are alluding to?

I voted Lib Dem at the last election. I have no agenda apart from an objection to this case being given a left wing Guardian slant. I also object to the term "residents groups" without some evidence on which groups these are. I can find no reference to any credible residents group on any news site and would still be dubious of its credentials even if I could. It is a well known tactic of both the BNP and far-left socialists to pretend they are speaking on behalf of local residents and use names of hastily created groups and organisations to give the impression of a greater support base than actually exists. I can see no evidence of such a non political and bona fide residents group.

I used the term, "some, including left-wing socialist.." which is accurate.

Again, I didn't add the term murderers.

I don't really care what your politics are but you are clearly taking a leaf out of the far-left book with your reference to the above "racially motivated crimes" against some 15 year olds as a justification for a lack of media coverage of the Kriss Donald case and huge coverage of the Anthony Walker case. As for your reasoning on other stories pushing such racially motivated murders out of the news. Well it isn't borne out by the facts is it? We've even had an earthquake and the Anthony Walker case is still headline news every time something happens in the case. You'll need to do better than that.

I am only repeating the declared priorities of BBC editors who deem "hate crimes" to be more worthy of coverage than other cases. Something they clearly abide by, depending on the race of the victim. Now answer the above question. Guardian Sickness 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Guardian, Earthman, let me say this: though you may irk each other, I think the two of you working together will make this an excellent article. You both know far more about UK politics than I, so other than the tiny style edit I just made, I leave it to you. A couple points: using the word murderer just isn't encyclopedia style. For example, if I referred to the provisional IRA as "the murderers" in a description of their conduct in the context of Louis Mountbatten, that would be less good than "assassins" or "killers." (Here is how their actions are referred to in the Mountbatten article: "The killing of Mountbatten..." which is appropriate even though they murdered him, in my view.) "Murderer" sounds totally accurate in this article, but still the wrong style, you see what I'm saying? Another small point: twice we have mention of the BNP and political advantage. "There have also been accusations that the far right British National Party (BNP) have sought to exploit the case for political advantage" and "The BNP were accused by Scotland's First Minister Jack McConnell (Labour party) of seeking to exploit the case for political advantage." This needs to be fixed. Again, I think you're both reasonably smart people, and that you will make this a good article not in spite of your differing perspectives but because of them. Oh, and one more thing: I think the article will be stronger if a quote can be inserted about just what led police to think the attacks were racially motivated. Did the killers know Kriss? Would any white boy have done? Did they brag about it? What did they say? IronDuke 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ironduke, regarding the IRA killing of Mountbatten. Personally I would have no problem with the term murder being used in that case and my politics aren't exactly on the British Unionist side of the fence. The term murderer denotes a person who has killed with premeditation whereas a killer is not necessarily a murderer. This is the same problem I have with the BBC and the use of the word "terrorist". In seeking to avoid the use of "emotional" or "loaded" words there is a tendancy to avoid the very words which best describe people who have deliberately terrorised or killed others, and in my opinion this is a bad use of English, is often not specific enough and sometimes borders on propaganda in favour of criminals.

In addition to this Ted Bundy is described somewhere or listed under the category of "executed murderers" on this site. I don't have a problem with that either, but if it's good for Ted I think it should be good for others. Also Jon Benet Ramsay's death is described as murder, rightly so in my opinion. I'll look for the additional info, but I disagree with the the deletion of the term murderer as Daanish Zahid was found guilty of that very crime. In addition I have a problem with the deletion of "Left-wing" before Jack McConnell's title. He was a radical left winger in the 80s, but has supposedly come to the centre left. However, if the BNP are still far-right despite their claims to the contrary, why is Jack McConnell allowed to reinvent himself? Guardian Sickness 22:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, yall. I just saw this listed on the RfC page, and honestly, I'm not sure I can be much (any?) help. For starters, I can't figure out what's being disputed. Is it just the "inexplicably" regarding the BBC coverage, or is it the characterization of the parties and figures involved as well? If it's the latter, I'm certain I can't be much help, as I don't at all understand the nuances or detailed history of politics in the United Kingdom in general, let alone Scotland (as in I inadvertently insulted a far-left friend from Scotland by asking if she voted for the SNP, which is apparently right wing?). I will agree with Iron Duke, though: I noticed the accusations against the BNP, if not fully being mentioned in two places, could be reported more clearly. I don't know and offer no opinion about whether or not it deserves two paragraphs of coverage, but currently, the two paragraphs read to me as though the information is sprawled across them, rather than being written about in two tightly linked paragraphs. I'm not sure that's a helpful comment or not. The Literate Engineer 06:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just found this from the RFC page too. Personally I would entirely remove the two sentences about the BBC nationwide coverage. There is no explanation of why this is significant to the case. Surely it is normal for news coverage of an event to cease after a while? If something is being alleged, what specific evidence is there for it? --Enlad 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is significant to the case as it further explains the basis for the "far right" allegations of a disparity in coverage between different racially motivated crimes. For example the Anthony Walker case, where coverage has continued throughout the case and will not likely end until the last alleged murderer is found guilty and sentenced, and the Kriss Donald case where coverage ceased on Nationwide broadcasts once it was established the crime was racially motivated. Clearly varying amounts of coverage given to the same crimes can be taken as evidence of an inconsistency in the stated priorities of the BBC and other media outlets. Guardian Sickness 18:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If we are making that case ourselves then we are violating the no original research ban. Instead we should find a source which says that the ending of coverage by the BBC was indicative of prejudice. It is not for us to draw conclusions. -Willmcw 22:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Willmcw entirely on this point. IronDuke 22:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the BBC, but only due to a lack of coverage on the comments of a BBC producer, which are currently only reported in BNP literature. I did see these comments by a BBC producer on a more neutral site, possibly even the BBC site, but wherever I seen them they have since been removed. The BBC Producer in question had raised concerns about the lack of coverage of the Kriss Donald case in BBC news reports. Of course if I find his comments reported from another source I will update the article accordingly. Guardian Sickness 23:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone can inject a bit of balance into the article, they will be doing the Wikipedia community a service. 213.1.45.6 21:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are meant to be some kind of impartial moderator looking at this article from a neutral perspective then you don't make much of an attempt to come across as one. It's obvious where your politics lie on this issue. The part of the article that mentions the BNP allegations about the media and government clearly states that it is an allegation made by them and does not mention the police investigation into the Kriss Donald case. Interesting then that you didn't take Jack McConnell's statement about the BNP as making the article a "propaganda piece" for left wing socialists. Wouldn't be because McConnell is right up your street would it?

It's no surprise the article isn't left wing enough for you, but if you'd care to take your head out the sand you might find that quoting the right wing BNP as well as the Jack McConnell actually adds balance. This website is not meant to be a left wing slanted site for race issues as far as I know and as I pointed out earlier, if you would care to read the full discussion, "local residents" and the "local population" are all too often either the far left or far right organising demonstrations and claiming to be doing so on behalf of local groups. You must try harder than that. Why not propose how you would like to update the article yourself and we can look at the merit of any points you wish to make? Guardian Sickness 15:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the horrific crime itself, one of the most repulsive aspects of this case was/is how the media and the liberal/left seem/ed more concerend about the BNP making political capital from this terrible case than they were about catching the perpetrators, who were still at large until recently. I've also edited out the comments regarding the Combat18 This article is supposed to be about Kriss Donald, it's not a place for left-wingers to make cheap political statements about miniscule 'neo-nazi' groups that weren't connected to this case. Noonday underground

With all due respect Noonday underground, it's not the media's job to catch the perpetrators. The police, with the assistance of Mohammad Sarwar,, worked diligently to locate Kriss' (alleged) killers and extradite them back to the UK.

It's not soley the medias job to catch the criminals, of course, but they play a critical role especially with programmes like Crimewatch, where their appeals to the general public often lead to successful convictions. It was/is blatanly obvious to a complete moron that the meda, the Left and the CPS don't give a damn for the likes of Kriss Donald, Ross Parker, Gavin Hopley and numerious others, because they were white working-class males. I also wish people would leave the main page alone! I get the impression that some people here just want to burry this horrific case. Noonday underground


 * I'm fairly new to this article, so please excuse if I'm covering old ground. I have no problem with the article including the BNP's claims - but I would be more comfortable if there were a ref with them. For all the reader knows, the article could be mispresenting the BNP by putting words in their mouths. And the "some people say" style is heavily deprecated on controversial stuff for similar reasons. Noonday, you seem to have done a lot of work on this article, and know the material well - could you find refs for these paras? It will greatly improve the article. Cheers, JackyR 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the page again. Someone has disgracefully removed the photo of Kriss Donald and inserted inocrrect claims that Kriss Donald's mother denied the motive for the killing was a racial motive. If anyone intends to edit in this manner in future then post here first and explain your reasoning so it can be scrutinised. The article has basically been butchered by people on both sides of the political spectrum, who have not discussed or even informed others of what sections they were editing or why. If this continues I will put up the original article, which I posted after much discussion (which can be seen above) some months ago. Guardian Sickness 00:04, 03 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so people know: someone from Bradford is editing this article to insert false claims into it, such as Kriss Donald's mother denied the motive for the crime was a racial one (which is untrue). They are also putting links into the article to the "Glasgow anti racist alliance". I have therefore edited the article so that it reads as it did approx 4 or 5 months ago. I will continue to edit it in this way as long as people continue to meddle with the article without first discussing it. Guardian Sickness 15:16, 04 May 2006 (UTC)

Guardian Sickness, are you implying that Kriss' mother has stated that this was a racially motivated murder? Because i can assure you she has never said that.

No, I'm stating that those found guilty of his murder were found to have committed a racially motivated crime, and that his mother has never denied this fact. Guardian Sickness 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)