The decision to use an image of a Gaza protest as the representative image of a British ‘civil war’ when there were literal race riots and proto-pogroms in the streets less than a year ago is one of those editorial choices that says far more than the article itself possibly could.
Reposted from
flyingrodent
Sure, but this type of shit is the illogical conclusion if you believe e.g. people voted out Jonathan Ashcroft due to sectarian hatred, or that millions of people are angry about the destruction of Gaza due to racial animus, and that none of this is compatible with “Britishness”.
Comments