by Chauncey Tinker – 28 Sep 2017
[EDIT: I made a mistake which I have corrected below - the video wasn't recorded at the hospital it was probably recorded in the Islamic centre "right after the attack" (at least according to some reports).]
[EDIT: Please note that since this case is now sub-judice we have disabled the comments on this article.]
The troubling descent into insanity that our society is currently undergoing is seen once again in the MSM news coverage of a “hate crime incident” involving one Dr Nasser Kurdy, who is a surgeon. This story has appeared prominently on a number of major news sites including the BBC (where it appeared on the front page).
Altrincham mosque stabbing: Surgeon attacked in ‘hate crime’
There is a video clip in a Manchester Evening News article of the Dr. in a centre apparently talking to staff there right after the alleged incident took place, and simply holding his hand to his neck without apparently anything on the alleged wound to apply pressure. There is no sign of blood and the Dr. is talking quite calmly to the staff about the incident:
This is the respected doctor stabbed in the neck outside a mosque – as Islamic Association says ‘abusive comments’ were shouted
The BBC news report refers to a stabbing, but Dr Kurdy in the video clip seems unsure whether it was a knife:
I don’t know he had something in his hand, I don’t think it was that sharp
However the men tending to the Dr. insist there is a cut. Its understandable that a victim might be a little confused after such an incident.
If you watch the video clip all the way through you can see that the Dr. takes his hand away from his neck at one point (@1.07) and turns his head partly side on to the camera. There is still no sign of blood visible not even on the hand he has been holding to the “wound”. He also mentions that his arm is working well at one point and moves his arm to demonstrate.
The MEN version of the story says this:
He ran into the Centre and then called emergency services.
Furthermore the Independent version of the story says that:
He rushed inside and, fearing the attacker may follow, grabbed a chair and dashed outside, but his attacker had fled.
There was no mention of the chair in the MEN story, but this may just have been an oversight.
However if there had been any serious loss of blood taking place he would not have been able to run around and grab a chair like that surely? These statements do also seem to suggest that the alleged injury was a minor one or else the Independent was making the story up as it went along. Even calling the emergency services might have been difficult although it might have been possible with one hand I suppose if the cut wasn’t too bad.
There was some confusion in the media about whether the gash was 3 cm or 3 inches long. The MEN refers to a “three-inch gash to his neck”, but if you listen closely to the video you can hear one of the men who looks at the wound say its about 3 cm. Obviously there would be quite a difference in seriousness of a wound between those two sizes.
There were many references in the media pointing towards a hate motive, e.g. the phrase "'abusive comments' were shouted" appears in the MEN article headline quoted above. The BBC article also refers to a "hate crime" in the title.
A quote from the Independent article (which contains in total 8 references to "hate crime"):
Police later made two arrests and said they were treating the incident as a hate crime.
The force is treating the matter as a hate crime but not terrorism related.
However in the police report there is no reference to a hate crime motive. Maybe this will be added later, and it seems as though the Dr. did say that abuse was shouted. Surely the Independent is breaking sub-judice rules by describing the incident as a hate crime before a judge and jury have reached a verdict?
By contrast in this next story there is no mention of a “hate crime” motive. It seems odd does it not that there would be no hate motive in a crime where a woman is stabbed/burned to death and a child suffers burns?
Woman killed in arson house fire
The fact that the chief suspect in this crime appears to be of a different ethnicity (judging from the name) is of course not something we can read too much into since its part of an ongoing court case (please don’t speculate about this case in the comments below).
The Independent reported that:
But Mr Kurdy said he felt hate crimes against Muslims were escalating on the back of terror incidents including the Arena bombing and the Parsons Green tube attack.
“There needs to be acknowledgement that hate crimes against Muslims are on the increase and they are becoming more physical.”
Really, and this one minor incident is evidence of that? This claim also seems at odds with a statement quoted in the BBC article from a spokesman for the mosque (notice how they exaggerate the seriousness of the incident):
Dr Khalid Anis, a spokesman for the mosque, said: “It could have been very, very serious…We understand it was a knife, he is very lucky.
“It’s a very unified town so for this to happen like this in the street, it is frightening.”
A knife? A very blunt knife if so. A “unified town” with a terrible amount of anti-Muslim hate crime? The spokesman might have mentioned that the alleged knife appears to have been either very blunt or it must have been wielded with very little force (unless of course the Dr.’s skin is as thick as an elephant’s).
Quote from the BBC article:
The Muslim Council of Britain said it was shocked by the attack and urged the government to implement its “hate crime action plan”.
It seems pretty clear to me that the whole incident has been at best considerably exaggerated and used by the MSM and MCB to encourage a really bad policy – hate crime legislation. There may be some of you who think I am being unkind in suspecting that Islamic lawfare is a suitable phrase to use to describe what is going on here, but I see this as a push to encourage the government to take crimes against Muslims more seriously than crimes against non-Muslims, and I find this extremely objectionable. Exposing this agenda is the real purpose of this post.
(Incidentally why do BBC licence fee payers have to fund this BBC “news” website anyway? Its a TV licence not a web surfing licence. Why should those who wish to watch TV programmes be forced to also fund a website that anyone can view?)
I’m afraid that although the Dr. may be a completely honest and trustworthy individual there are aspects of this story that just simply don’t hang together too well, and there are too many inconsistencies between the various news articles to take this whole story at face value. Of course this may just reflect the fact that our mainstream media is so very poor at reporting these days.
Note that a homeless man has apparently been arrested and charged with the crime. With all this media hysteria going on its a little bit difficult to imagine his trial will not be prejudiced by the hysterical media coverage which surely is breaking sub judice law. When a crime is categorized as a “hate crime” in the UK currently the judge is required to give a much longer sentence on conviction (even twice as long a sentence).
Hate Crime Sentencing Uplifts
Also I have to admit that I find the prioritization by the BBC of this alleged minor “hate crime” as a more newsworthy item over a truly horrific arson attack that left a white woman dead and a child with burns to be completely incomprehensible. Incomprehensible that is unless the BBC perhaps thinks that the lives of Muslims are far, far more important than the lives of non-Muslim British people.
So here we have yet another incident that demonstrates that hate crime legislation is not just a really bad idea, it is actively counter-productive because it encourages division in society. It encourages groups to vie for most attacked victim status. Clearly the mainstream media is only too happy to favour certain groups over others, as you can see they lie by omission about the far more serious attack – an actual murder. For example there is no mention whatsoever of the murder I mentioned above at the Guardian, yet they published a full-page article on the alleged attack on the Dr..
Please note that comments have been turned off as these cases are both sub-judice