This news piece, 'Travellers in Cambridge claim discrimination and hate by residents in pubs and authorities' (in the Cambridge News), is chockablock with quotes. And every single one of the quotes defends the travellers. In other words, there are zero quotes from the many Cambridge critics of the travellers. That, basically, is extreme and blatant bias.
And why is a regional “crime reporter” - in this case Raymond Brown - giving so much credence to the front group of the “revolutionary” Socialist Workers Party (SWP) anyway? He must know that UAF was set up and is now run by the SWP. He must know that because I told him. However, because I'm “xenophobic” and “Islamophobic”, and also a “racist fascist bigot” (as well as other such ad hominems), he might well have simply ignored or disbelieved me.
Not surprisingly, this very same journalist was uninterested in writing an article about Cambridge Unite Against Fascism (CUAF) encouraging and endorsing “extreme brutality” against the citizens of Cambridge who dare to contradict its views. Why? Because Leftist extremism is good; whereas “far right” extremism is most definitely bad.
What I don't understand is how Raymond Brown manages to tie in the EDL demonstration against a planned mosque in Cambridge with the local anger at the behaviour of travellers. Is it yet more of that native Cambridge “bigotry”, “racism” and “intolerance”? The kind you can find from many Cambridge residents in the comments section of this news piece? Perhaps that's because such residents have to live with the behaviour of the travellers; whereas students and the largely middle-class members of UAF don't. Yes, the arrogance, snobbery and moral smugness of these Leftist elitists is staggering.
It's funny how the Extreme Left (such as Unite Against Fascism, Hope Not Hate and leaders of the SWP) are quoted left, right and center in regional newspapers; whereas the “far right” are not only never quoted: they are frequently castigated and stereotyped. Why this gross imbalance between attitudes towards the Far Left and Far Right? Why don't these parochial regional journalists ever make the effort to find out who and what United Against Fascism, etc. are? That's unless they don't care about who they are. Either that, or they know who they are and sympathise with them.As is usually the case with these unashamedly biased regional pieces, the views of local people can only be found in the comments section. Those comments - in the case of this Cambridge News piece - are overwhelmingly negative towards the travellers. Indeed without these comments sections the vast majority of of British people would be disenfranchised and only groups like Cambridge UAF would be given a voice on these and on similar issues.
|Martin Smith, formerly a prominent leader of Unite Against Fascism & on the Central Committee of the SWP, attacking shoppers in Birmingham - literally for disagreeing with him,|
(Because UAF-SWP members act and even think collectively, what sometimes happens, though rarely, is that if the comments are particularly negative, they will post, en masse, uniformly positive comments on orders from above. That's no surprise because such people are virtually political automatons: that's why nearly all of their comments and even their thoughts are cut-and-pastes which are peppered with Leftist and multicult soundbites.)
|Dave/Daniel Baigent surrounded by votes.|
Dave [called Daniel in Cambridge News) Baigent, the Romsey Labour Party candidate for Cambridge City Council, also gets in on this “smash the fash” racket by talking about “racism” when it comes to both the EDL's actions in Cambridge and those local residents who've spoken out against the behaviour of the travellers. But why “racism”? I simply don't understand.
If a sizable group of local people object to a mosque which they think will create serious problems for the community, or when they think that travellers do the same, why is that racism? Do these travellers actually belong to a different race or is Mr Baigent using the word “racism” to try and silence people?
|Embrace this Cambridge Diversity?|
i) What's “racist” about objecting to travellers “killing many [local pubs] stone dead”?
ii) What's racist about “the perception that a particular section of society gets preferential treatment from the authorities”?
iii) What's racist about finding some travellers “intimidating”?
iv) What's racist about feeling “discriminated against” because you're not a traveller?
v) What's racist about being against the “travellers [who] control the village with violence and they get away with it because even the police are scared of them”?
vi) What's racist about thinking the travellers “kids are rude and abusive to shopkeepers” and being against them “calling a Chinese lady assistant in the Cottenham chip shop a 'chinky ****'”?
vii) What's racist about being against travellers being “let off scott free for parking caravans illegally”, or for “fly tipping”, or for “not getting correct planning permission”, or for “driving like maniacs”?
You see, none of the above has anything to do with race or racism. And, the thing is, Mr Baigent and UAF know that. The word “racism” is simply a word-weapon which is used to silence contradictory opinions. As Frank - whose views are not even given a sideways mention in the article - puts it:
“It's not the fact they are travellers/gypsies. It's the fact they can't be civil, respectable and law-abiding citizens. They behave antisocially. It's not my fault that puts me off them, is it?”
Since this potential Labour Party councillor, Queen's College Cambridge and UAF will know all about these many perfectly justifiable grievances against the travellers, then perhaps it has more to do with these ever-so-decent people (or so they keep telling us) parading their supreme tolerance for all to see. And the only way they can get away with ignoring or dismissing all these justifiable grievances is by calling many of their fellow Cambridge citizens “racist”.
It's also interesting to note that although these pious sermons on behalf of the never-wrong travellers say that they've been “victimised” and “discriminated against”, no examples are given of such things. Perhaps simple criticisms of their behaviour - such as can be found in the comments section (though not in the article itself) - are deemed to be victimisation or discrimination.
It's hard to tell what the truth is primarily because - amongst the grandstanding tolerance and self-conscious piety of Cambridge UAF, Labour councillors, etc. - you have the feeling that these 21st century left-wing moralists know full well that the travellers are causing many problems for the local community. Nonetheless, these people are far more concerned with proving to themselves - and to others - how ultra-tolerant and decent they are than they are with the situations and views of the people of Cambridge (exempting those students who'll only be living there for three years). In other words, these pious Leftists and left-liberals are the 21st-century versions of the equally posh Fabians of the early 20th, century, the Victorian moralists of the 19th century and the 16/17th-century Puritans.