Quote:
|
as a result of being over-promoted and not receiving proper training and support
|
Important omissions highlighted. To complete his post punky might have pointed out:
1) The story is from an Australian Murdoch-owned conservative tabloid (taken from the Mail) and thus open to loads of bias. It's about as reliable as a report in the Sun.
2) The case wasn't just about being 'over-promoted because of his skin', but because he didn't receive training which led to him being unable to do his job, which led to him losing it.
3) If that lack of training was because of his skin then it's good old fashioned racial discrimination, but we'll never know because it's not going to tribunal.
Anyway, it's high time we stopped using second-hand reports from right-wing tabloids printed in right-wing tabloids on the other side of the world - here's a selection of alternatives:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...&id=2069722005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ixportal.html
Note the lack of reference to 'over-promotion', which only appears in the Mail and subsequent articles based on it. Why would 'police sources' only speak to the Mail about this, and not even the Telegraph? The copper in question even appears on a Nazi website (he was allegedly beaten up by anti-Nazis, but the source is far from credible) and even they don't mention 'over-promotion' or 'political correctness'.
The original Mail story (which has all the hallmarks of being put out by the Met to discredit a black policeman who dared stand up, as has happened frequently in the past) has appeared in right-wing blogs and sites in the US. Did punky get it from there or does he routinely trawl the websites of crappy tabloids from the other side of the world for stories about black people in the UK? I think we should be told.
So, all in all, not what it seems. But that's to be expected if you rely on biased second-hand single source information without caveats.