You are right. I had never heard of him. The surprise is that you have.

Why? Because this happened in the USA, where such events rarely make the news here. Your assertions about why we don't know, made without evidence, are totally ridiculous. The idea that the colour of someone's skin affects the way their crime is reported might fit with the worldview you constantly peddle here, but this "white victim" stance you adopt is really quite offensive. I doubt you understand why though.

This is a thread about Conservative incompetence. How is that impacted by these murders.

Maybe be virtue signalling has no currency in Senegal.

Often agree with you but not this time.

Posts drift, get used to it.

But on Stirling's point, you are wrong if you don't think that a white male targeting black children in the US would not cause riots and international media coverage.

Maybe. Why does it matter?

No-one forces anyone to participate. You don't have to. I don't. If the England players want to, why do you care?

I'd highlight but the ridiculousness and idiocy is consistent with every word.

It's not about the action, or alleged actions, it's about the narrative and assumed intention surrounding it.

1. 'Not accepting the answer'. The question almost definitely was not inferring that her skin colour did not constitute 'British/Englishness', it was almost certainly regarding her attire which by definition was not English/British. That is barely an anecdote let alone newsworthy. I implore any 'white English/British' person to move to I don't know, Japan, or even better a small village in Africa somewhere, attend an event with their upper class donning a beefeater costume, or England Rugby kit, and then try to sell the story to the media of the horrendous racist ordeal they suffered when asked 'where they were from' when only giving the name of where they currently resided (somewhere in Japan or Africa). Even then, just being white may be enough but it's enough to distinguish you from the majority at said event, and any question of this nature should not be pre-determined in it's motive or even offensive. I was born in Lewisham hospital and spent all my young life there. If, with two Irish parents, I chose to venture out and mingle with royalty et al dressed as a leprechaun, with a died ginger beard, carrying a shillelagh, any inference that I was something other than English would be expected and I would not repeatedly answer 'Lewisham' when questioning arrives due to the nature of my get up, that's common sense, unless of course I was angling for something to fit my narrative no matter how ridiculous.

2. The suggestion that Lady Hussey has any idea or had any intention to apologise is an uninformed assumption at best. To suggest that she was briefed, informed and obliged to as a result of her actions not aligning to the current zeitgeist/narrative is almost guaranteed regardless of her awareness.

3. A person murdering two children on a live streamed event is horrific and said individual is, again by definition, not accepted within society. Whether they have a diagnosable mental illness or are just extremely callous and driven by ulterior motives is yet to be seen however possible. Thank you for the diagnosis of 'deranged' however doctor, the insight you offer into the human mind is revolutionary.

Soooooo, to summarise, thank you for clarifying and providing a textbook example for my initial point from the first post - that the narrative surrounding both instances is racially driven. The first, an extremely mild lack of alignment to the current narrative at best, is a conclusion based upon illogical and bias determined parameters with no movement for further context or explanation as the guilty party is white and the aggrieved is not. This is headline news. The second example however is horrific crime, unimaginable to any decent human being, however as the guilty party is not white, and although the victims were, we must not even entertain the thought it could be racially motivated as this does not align with the current narrative.

Your subscription to this zeitgeist/narrative is the most perfect example of somebody seeking to 'build divisions between people that ought not be built'. It's actually quite staggering. A horrific murder is newsworthy. An awkward, poorly socially navigated interaction is not. The latter is in the news however and the former has no coverage. Any individual regardless any other identifier is able to question and probably answer as to why this is, provided they have 2 brain cells to rub together. Unfortunately, many do not, as you have exhibited.