Guardian report on London riots omits the race or ethnicity of rioters – but, still mentions Jews


The Guardian’s Editorial Code may not include any prohibition against licensing voices who are openly anti-Semitic, providing a platform to members of a terrorist group, nor legitimizing those who seek the Jewish state’s destruction, but does include the following:

“In general, we do not publish someone’s race or ethnic background or religion unless that information is pertinent to the story. We do not report of the race of criminal suspects unless their ethnic background is part of a description that seeks to identify them or is an important part of the story (for example, if the crime was a hate crime”

Yet, in a 1800 word Guardian report on the London riots, by Paul Lewis, titled, “Tottenham riots: a peaceful protest, then suddenly all hell broke loose, Aug. 8, which doesn’t mention the race, ethnicity, or religion of the rioters, somehow found it pertinent to note that some of those who gathered to jeer police were, allegedly, Hasidic Jews. 

The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10….But families and other local residents, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community, also gathered to watch and jeer at police. [emphasis mine]

So, the rioters – who have torched, ransacked and looted shops, pubs, banks and even residential properties, and have attacked journalists, police, and firefighters for the past three days – are characterized by Lewis as merely “racially mixed”, yet he somehow deems it relevant to note that some of Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community were among those who allegedly watched and “jeered” police.  

To the Guardian, the particular race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation of the rioters is of no particular significance, but the religion of a few of those who reportedly witnessed the police response to the riots is apparently worth noting.

What possible relevance, per the Guardian’s own code of ethics, does the religious background of some of those who reportedly jeered police have?

Why wasn’t the race, ethnicity, or religious background of others who witnessed the riots and/or jeered police mentioned? 

Is there really any question that Lewis’s report represents a flagrant violation of the Guardian’s Editorial Code? 

147 comments on “Guardian report on London riots omits the race or ethnicity of rioters – but, still mentions Jews

  1. This report amounts to evil. I tremble for the Guardian reporters – You reap what you sow.

    • I saw the BBC showing Haredi men running AWAY from there, the video didn’t show any jeering. I was wondering how come they don’t say anything about the religion or ethnic background of the people rioting.
      Is it really “mixed”?

      • I just saw the “Deputy Mayor for Policing” on the BBC asking “where are the parents?” of the children involved in the rioting. This question was never seriously asked by reporters during the Intifada.

          • Actually, from scenes on TV some of the the children were watching their parents rioting. Some kids were clearly only 5 or 6 years old. Learning by example?

      • Yes indeed. The rioters are a collection of Jews, Jews and more Jews.

        At least, according to The Guardian.

        They have slipped up badly here. Their ‘Code’ was ‘copy protected’ on the Internet page and now we know why. They can alter it at will to fit any situation.

          • I did that to all 14 pages. But they have used a font which eludes the HP picture-to-text application.

            Still. I have the pics archived.

        • The rioters are a collection of Jews, Jews and more Jews.

          One half a sentence amidst a couple of dozen articles?!?!

      • Well i did see them jeering and laughing, running forward and laughing as they ran back when the police approached, i sort of agree with the article written in response to the Guardian report, but i think maybe the article was written mentioning Jewish people specifically is because to non jewish people like myself i have to honestly say i was even more surprised when i saw the Jewish people there involving themselves in the mayhem, the others i sort of expect but rightly or wrongly i was surprised

  2. Anybody still in doubt about the anti-Semitic credentials of the Gaurdian please form an ordely queue!

  3. From what I’ve read the Jews were on the ‘spectator’ side and for whatever reason, ended up running – caught up in the excitement? They were also apparently handing out bread to spectators, reporters and people who had to leave property etc – haven’t seen any evidence that the Jews were actually rioting.

  4. “(for example, if the crime was a hate crime””

    There is one hate crime the Guardian loves to commit – mentioning anything at all to do with Jews and Israel. But never anything about the obvious fact that these were race riots triggered by the shooting of a black man.

    So – London burns as race riots sweep through the city and predominantly black youngsters loot the stores and the news item is

    “Orthodox Jews seen observing the arson”.

    • AKUS

      the news item is “Orthodox Jews seen observing the arson”.

      Utter and complete bullshit.

          • Do you really not get this?

            Why the Jews? Weren’t there any bicycle riders they could refer to?

            Rather than report on the actual rioters, the Guardian chooses to report on only one group who happen to NOT be involved in the rioting – i.e., they preferred to report on the non-event of the ethnicity of some people who happened to be near because they were Jews when they could have pointed out the ethnicity/ethnicities of the actual rioters.

            It has taken several days for the Guardian to grudgingly use the word “black” to describe some of the rioters and communities involved. At the very first opportunity they had they mentioned Jews because they are obsessed with Jews and Israel even as their city burns around them.

            • Sorry, but it is not only the Jews mentioned in this Guardian article. Follow the link and you will see what the blog author here deleted and replaced by “…”. This gap at the Guardian website reads (in bold letters):

              “But families and other local residents REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AREA – BLACK, ASIAN AND WHITE, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community – also gathered to watch and jeer at police.”

              With manipulations like these I have to confess that the Guardian article seems more ethical and trustworthy than the responsible person of this blog here.

              • Berlonski didn’t read very carefully; the text he cited is the version of the article AFTER GUardian updating, implicitly admitting the validity of CifWatch’s criticism.

                • Inicially they didn’t mention blacks, whites or anything, only jews. The guardian changed the article. They say that at the end.

            • Rather than report on the actual rioters, the Guardian chooses to report on only one group who happen to NOT be involved in the rioting

              No, I don’t “get this” – because it’s nonsense. There must be two dozen articles about the riots, and you’re talking about one half of one sentence within that coverage.

    • That was not the headline. It was mentioned in the body of the report, not as a headline. There is no denial that the majority of demonstrators/rioters were of black ethnicity, the photos and the descriptions tell us that, but it was a relevant point to make, that there were a significant number of Hassidic jewish males on Saturday involved in the disturbances.

  5. There hasn’t been much footage of the riot, and the Haredi men stood out for me in the clip I saw on TV – “stood out” in the sense of: an unexpected sight.

    I see no malicious intent whatsoever on the Guardian’s part. This is IMO a case misinterpreting the coverage. If anything, I think the report is trying at best to say that it’s not just black people pissed off by the police. Or alternatively pointing out that this is a mixed local community.

    You are way off the mark here.

    • Why mention “Jews” at all pretzelberg?

      If they mention Jews why not mention the ethnicity of all the rioters?

      Do you honestly not see where I am going with this or are you being deliberately obtuse?

      • Why mention “Jews” at all pretzelberg?

        Because there were clearly identifiable Haredi on the film footage (even if just as bystanders)? And that was an unexpected sight?

        Do you honestly not see where I am going with this or are you being deliberately obtuse?
        a) Yes, I do see where you are going with this
        b) I do not agree
        c) No, I am not being obtuse

        There’s also an article from the ultra-left SWP that mentions the Haredi. The tone of that piece is clearly putting a – for the SWP – positive edge on the latter.

        • On pictures from Al jazzira, there are clearly only black people involved in the rioting and looting. Don’t you find it somewhat suspect that broadcast pictures from UK media were not clear about who the rioters were and when the BBC films haredim obviously running from something but in no way pictured rioting, the Guardian has to mention that Jews are present.

          Yes. It would alert me to if I saw it but, we are not talking about Israel-centric people like you or me, we are talking about ‘Guardian people’. Unless of course, you do accept that The Guardian and all its employees are Israel-centric. In the negative sense of course. Even though they claim to be ‘fair and balanced’.

        • Pretz:
          “Because there were clearly identifiable Haredi on the film footage (even if just as bystanders)? And that was an unexpected sight?”

          I can get the clearly identifiable (like the black people are) but why seeing Jews in tottenham, or anywhere in north London, is an unexpected sight is beyond me.
          Please explain?

          Do you perhaps mean that Jews should be hiding in their homes at the first sight of trouble?
          Or that Jews should be packing at the first sight of troubles?

          I honestly hear what you are trying to say but do you hear what others are pointing out equaly well?

          • Do you perhaps mean that Jews should be hiding in their homes at the first sight of trouble?

            You know what I mean. Seeing a group of Haredi Jews in that context was simply, well, unusual – even if they didn’t participate in the riot. I understand why others are asking: why specify only that group? But nonetheless I see no malicious intent. As another poster said here: Haredi are considered a socially conservative group – which is why seeing them out there on the streets (and from what I can see it just seemed like young men enjoying a brief thrill) stood out.

    • The Guardian’s true colours shining through once more, cranking up discord and feasting off the results.

  6. Subliminal implant. Show violence, mention Jews, show manipulated photos implying sinister intent, again mention Jews – do it over and over again and you have followed the real editorial guideline of The Filth – spread hate.

    • Subliminal implant. Show violence, mention Jews, show manipulated photos implying sinister intent

      What “sinister intent”? What “manipulated photos”? You’re making it up.

      • It’s a tactic. They choose only to mention Jews to plant the suggestion, without coming out and saying it right away, that Jews are evil. Later when there is a story that relates more to Jews or Israel. The suggestion planted in the public’s collective mind will cause it to gravitate more in anti-Jewish, anti-Israel direction.

        • It’s a tactic. They choose only to mention Jews to plant the suggestion, without coming out and saying it right away, that Jews are evil.

          Erm … is this satire???

    • Hey everyone, Pretzelberg is right. It’s just some hoodies having a barbecue. Nothing special or unusual.

      Omigod~ I saw a Jew there. Now it’s getting serious.

  7. They didn’t mention the ethnicity of the rioters,but would have made sure to mention the rioters ethnicity if they had blond hair and blue eyes.

    If they can’t guarantee the safety of London now,what hope have they to safe guard the Olympics…………..

    • While Harriet Sherwood is posting from Jerusalem insensate articles about Israel,her own back yard in London is being looted,and burned to the ground.

      Are the Guardians buildings anywhere near where all this burning and looting is going on………

      • What an inane comment. You expect the entire UK media to pull back its foreign correspondents because of the riots? Does the Israeli media have no staff in other countries??

    • If they can’t guarantee the safety of London now,what hope have they to safe guard the Olympics…

      You sound like the scaremongering white racists before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.

          • He’s old enough to stick to his first reaction and not to rethink the facts despite how many reasonable people think differently from him.

            • He’s old enough to stick to his first reaction and not to rethink the facts

              But that’s precisely what you and most others here are doing!

              The Guardian article is almost 1800 words long. In the midst of that is one solitary sentence referring to the Haredi.

              As I said: I see no malice in that reference.

              • Then you are blind.

                It is explicit G policy not to mention the racial/religious belonging of any person(s) when the circumstances are negative. So as not to encourage prejudice. Understandable.

                But why does this policy fail to hold for Jews, as on this occasion?

                • Yes Geary. That is the point that Pretz simply cannot contemplate.

                  Pretz. The Guardian is biased. It has a predilection to seek out negativity about Jews and Israel while an opposite predilection to ignore negatives about ‘brown people’/Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians and any others that are basically hostile to the United States of America. And of course, hostile to Israel.

                  In this case, if accidentally displayed its predilection for all to see.

                • The Guardian is biased. It has a predilection to seek out negativity about Jews and Israel

                  Biased when it comes to Israel? Yes, obviously. But Jews in general? No. Why does the G. employ Jews, then? Why does it have its Sounds Jewish podcast? Why is there e.g. a current editorial in praise of Steve Reich?

                • It only employs Jews who are ‘hate Israel Jews’. You know this Pretz. On the other hand, I think that a pro Israel Jew would find it sickening day after day to work there.

                • It only employs Jews who are ‘hate Israel Jews’.

                  Jonathan Freedland hates Israel? Hadley Freeman? Jason Solomons?

                  Madness.

                  The Guardian is unrelenting in its constant attempts to present Jews and Israel negatively

                  Check out the Guardian homepage. No mention of either Israel or Jews.

                  Hardly an “unrelenting” campaign is it?

                • That’s today Pretz.

                  Israel has been driven from the front pages by what the Guardian sees as an opportunity to take Cameron down a notch or two. When these criminal riots have been brought under control, Israel will once again be a ‘star’.

                  The Guardian is obsessed with Israel. Their ‘Chicken Lady’ is hunting through the English pages of HaAretz and the Jerusalem Post to find any dirt that can be used to disparage Israel. Yet she ignores the material in those publications relating to abominations in the PA territories and the Gaza strip. She tries to provoke a physical confrontation between the Israeli Navy and Palestinian fisherman.

                  The evidence is there for you to see it. You seem to be incapable of understanding its implications.

                • That’s today Pretz. Israel has been driven from the front pages by what the Guardian sees as an opportunity to take Cameron down a notch or two.

                  Not just today. I remeber several weeks ago pointing the same thing out to some poster here, i.e.: a good hundred stories/links on the Guardian homepage, and no mention of Israel.

                  And as for “Jews” featuring on the homepage – once in a blue moon. The paper makes “unrelenting” efforts to “present Jews negatively”?? You know that’s nonense.

                • The paper makes “unrelenting” efforts to “present Jews negatively”?? You know that’s nonense.

                  You are like a small child trying to explain the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

                  You know that this is the truth pretzel but you are simply unable to acknowledge your blindness.

                  The Guardian does everything to show Jews in a negative light and incite hate against Jews – simply there are legal limitations to observe.
                  And don’t come with the usual slogan that they want to show different views please. They never published anything from the BNP, KuKluxKlan etc. (rightly so) but happily gave forum to much worse fascists or other haters simply because they are against the Jews.
                  And you know that this is not a nonsense very well.

                • Wow. You can thread three big words together? Always amazing how bigots can do that once in a while.

                  CiF threads tend to attract morons – but the average IQ of posters here makes CiF look like a veritable capital of enlightenment.

                • Pretzelberg “the average IQ of posters here makes CiF look like a veritable capital of enlightenment.
                  Seeing that they’re intelligent enough to use the ”reply” function or at least to indicate who they re replying to while you don’t, I wonder how that reflects on you

                • In all fairness Germolene, the (Reply) function seems to have bugs in the positioning of ‘Reply’s.

                • Seeing that they’re intelligent enough to use the ”reply” function or at least to indicate who they re replying to while you don’t

                  The Reply function is/was knackered. Feel silly now? You should do.

                • pretzelberg still hasn’t learned the less of at least to indicate who they re replying to while you don’t. Some people never learn

                • @ Germolene
                  Even after seeing your own mistake and how foolish you were, you still have a go. Hilarious!

                • “CiF threads tend to attract morons…”
                  No shit Sherlock
                  That’s why you honour us with your company is it?

                • You know that this is the truth pretzel but you are simply unable to acknowledge your blindness.

                  No, I do not believe it to be the truth. Hence my posts on this thread.

                  The Guardian does everything to show Jews in a negative light

                  Except that “Jews” are not featured on the homepage. I repeat: yes, it’s coverage of I/P is excessive, and its choice of contributors on CiF is disgraceful – but that is all about that part of the world.

                  Why would they have a Jewish podcast if they were so anti-Semitic?

                  A smokescreen???

                • One wonders who is worse, the individual who stirs up anti-Semitism or the sanctimonious little shit who refuses to see it.

                • It’s one sentence in a very lengthy article. And if you look at the number and tone of articles about the riots over at the G, the Haredi are hardly being placed in a negative light.

                • Yes Pretzel. And the neighbor’s 14 old daughter is only a little bit pregnant…

                  So breaking their own ethical code only once in a “lengthy article” is perfectly OK…

                • The Guardian is unrelenting in its constant attempts to present Jews and Israel negatively. (Unless of course, they are anti Zionist Jews).You know this. If the article had been in any other propaganda media, I would hardly have noticed it or thought of it as merely ‘curious’.

                  The Guardian however, is ‘sinister’.

  8. Pretzelberg. Stop it. Read the article.

    First, I have a friend who lives in the Borough next to Lewisham. All the rioters that he and his friends saw were non-white.

    Second, if it’s true that some local residents were jeering the Police (and we have only this clearly anti-Police reporter’s word on this) it is of no relevance whatsoever that they included Jews. No more than if they included “clearly identifiable” as you put it Sikhs or Somalis or Chinese.

    This is a clear breach of the G’s code. But why? Becasue Jews are not covered by its anti-racist policy.

    That’s why the G will publish photos of Orthodox Jews in their oh-so-funny get-up whenever there’s a story relating to any kind of Jews anywhere in the world.

  9. Pretzelberg, you may be right to say that it would not necessarily be wrong to mention Hasidic Jews being there. But where I strongly disagree with you, and is the point others have tried to highlight is that the way it was written leaves it to the imagination of the reader that they may have been there to jeer the police and encourage the rioters. The Guardian does not make any qualification. This is what makes the Guardian offensive in singling out Jewish people in this way. No mention that Tottenham has a sizeable Hasidic community ; that a few walking the streets at any one time is a likely scene and getting caught in the fray was unfortunate serendipity. Or were they really part of an unruly mob that hate the police?

    Imagine a discussion 2 months on with a bigot . He or she will say: “It isn’t just the blacks and white working class and Asians ruining this country. Look! Jews are just as bad. And it can be proved. Look what the Guardian reported.”

    In short the Jews stick out to be targetted for abuse later.

  10. Since these are riots following on the death of a black gang leader, why on earth is it of “no importance” that the make-up of the rioters is predominantly black? “Racially mixed” is hardly a helpful description if a few white looter opportunists are also around.
    It would seem to me an essential piece of news for the reader.
    It could be that these riots being coordinated by London’s black gangsters.

    The G is so steeped in PC ideology it has ceased to be a newspaper.

    • Last line is very true. The ethnic make-up of much of the rioters is vital to understand the social and economic woes facing Britain, and the riots. Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t help.

      • It is extremely important to note that while there may be thugs and criminals involved, this clearly started as a riot in a predominantly black (Afro-British?) area because a black man was shot. It is unlikely it would have happened in a predominantly white area because even white British criminals do not feel that they are a special underclass based on skin color. Clearly, the Tottenham and other communities feel discriminated against and not integrated into British society and the initial reaction, at least, was born out of their frustrations boiling over.

        The idiocy of trying to dismiss all this as “criminal activity” is ridiculous. Are we meant to believe that there an entire class of young criminals in Britain who were waiting by their Blackberries for the word to get out about where to go and rob stores?

        These were race riots that like all such riots descended into criminality and you only have to look at the US in the 1960s to see the resemblance.

        This is the end result of the foolish idea of multi-culturalism and parking people in their ghettos separated by race, religion, and ethnicity as opposed to trying to integrate people into the larger society.

        • Well put. I would argue however that in every such case, including the Rodney King riots in the 90’s(?), the G8 summit riots,etc- there is a LARGE element of young men who join in simply for the “fun” of it, who do not necessarily share any ethnic, cultural or belief with the initial “core”, and who have NO ideological or practical purpose in mind except mindless violence.

          London police would be wise to roll out the water cannons, tear gas, and possibly start breaking legs ASAP, to prevent further escalation.

            • In Israel they now use water cannon’s with died water and chemicals which stink and you will stink for a few days.

              That should calm those Hassidic rioters…

        • AKUS,

          “because even white British criminals do not feel that they are a special underclass based on skin color.”

          Allow me to correct you.

          Most working class whites (if there is such a thing these days) say it out loud that they are being discriminated against because they white.

          They are very frustrated. But they will hardly likely go and riot because they prefer to take care of their homes and neighbourhoods rather than trash them down and the majority of them have a sense of respect to their fellow country men.

          • My God. What do you and AKUS sound like?

            Why is it that this website tends to attract righwingers?

            • A) I am not a right winger (not that it matters).
              B) I was correcting AKUS as per the conversation I have had in the Deli today about the riots.
              C) I should have used the word “many” rather than “most” when talking about working class white people I encounter daily.

              What I said are views expressed in public by people from Manchester and Liverpool and other places accross Britain who happen to disagree with the goings on of this country.

              I never said I agree with them or disagree with them.
              The West Indie security guard was saying harsher things about the rioters than breaking their legs.

              He is black and he doesn’t riot precisely for the same reasons the whites I mentioned don’t.

              I believe that most those who riot rioted as a result of boardom, lack of discipline and possibly added sense of social frustration.
              I may be wrong on that of course.

            • Akus makes a point that multiculturalism in the UK has not worked out.

              Wembley says that poor white people in the UK can feel aggrieved too.

              Why are these ‘rightwing’. That would make the vast majority of people in the UK ‘rightwing’.

  11. Perhaps Guardian staff are afraid of the repercussions of naming the majority of the rioters as of African and Middle Eastern descent. (but not ALL, by all means)

    After all Hasidic Jews tend not to react in violent anger to minor criticism, unlike those said groups.

    This is of course no excuse- Guardian’s integrity suffers yet another blow. It’s been reduced to dust by now.

  12. Of course if the British media weren’t too afraid and PC to actually do their JOB, perhaps the recognition that there are not 2 million unregistered immigrants in Britain but 20 million, might have created more awareness to this growing economic and social problem.

    But it doesn’t cater to their audience, so… no, you won’t hear much of it.

    P.S. I’m not right-wing by any means but the situation there is madness.

  13. I’m looking forward to the article by The Guardian’s per Jew Jonathan Freedlander blaming Israel’s blockade of Gaza for the Tottenham riots!!!! If only Israel had stopped building in the Disputed Territories, that furniture store in Croydon would never have been torched.

    • That should of course have read ‘pet Jew’. Here, kitty kitty. Keep on telling the world that The Guardian is not anti-Israel or anti-Jewish and we’ll keep on paying your salary.

  14. Pingback: Guardian report on London riots omits the race or ethnicity of rioters – but, still mentions Jews « Simon Studio Analysis

  15. Pingback: RADICAL EXTREMIST LEFTIST GUARDIAN OMITS BACKGROUND OF LONDON RIOTERS BUT MENTIONS JEWS……. |

  16. And, by comparison:

    350,000 – or maybe 150,000, or 250,000 people marched in TA and as far as I know not a store was looted.

    There may, of course, have been some Haredi Jews spotted in the crowd … :-)

    But no reports in Ha’aretz of British people watching the march :-)

    • This came to my mind as well. Made me proud that in Israel 300,000 people can march in such peace!
      It’s not a perfect comparison, but it shows you there is much hope for this country, and that we can still prevent Israel from fully becoming a Westernized society, without all the ills you see before you today in London.

      • I don’t know quite what you are alluding to here but Israel relies on ‘Western Societies’ and without ‘Western Societies’, there would probably not be an Israel. ‘Western Societies’ are all different and none is perfect. In Israel, we have separate government school systems for haredi, religious and Arabs. With great subdivision. This is not ‘Western’ and is an abomination. In Israel, we have huge amounts of money going to religious organisations. Not only Jewish organisations. That too is an abomination. In Israel, there is no civil marriage. Yet another abomination.

        • I Wasn’t referring to Western values, but to the general social and cultural structure and the growing alienation, crime, and economic disparity in Western countries. The fact that in Israel, with all the problems, you can still walk safely at night in a large city.

          Agreed on all your examples BTW. All abominations.

    • But no reports in Ha’aretz of British people watching the march

      What are you alluding to? Were there reports of Israelis watching the Tottenham riots??

      • You are right. No reports of Quakers watching the march in Tel Aviv. Somehow Ha’aretz forgot to report that. I guess they are not as sensitive to non-Jews as the Guardian is to Jews, right?

        • You know what I mean. Your comment about “no reports in Ha’aretz of British people watching the march” sounded like you don’t consider British Jews to be, well, British.

  17. Does anyone mention that this would be the very first time in history that hassidic jews would have jeered at police in Britain? When one wants to gather left wing, authority haters to create a riot, one does not call upon the famously socially conservative hassidic jews.

    If you don’t see my subtext. Here is my actual text. The reporter is intentionally lying or intnentionally repeating somone elses lie. There is 2 seconds of video in which one can see hassidic jews, there is absolutely no evidence that they were jeering at police.

    Though I have to admit, after 3 days of witnessing the complete failure of the police to stop this rioting, arson and looting, I would say that hard working law abiding, socially conservative, tax paying business owners have every right to jeer.

  18. Orthodox Jews were not just “jeering”. They were throwing stones at police and giving out bread to their fellow rioters. Over 50% of Hasidic Jews in Tottenham are on public assistance. They are no different from the other third worlders who come in, refuse to work, and want a handout.

    • “They are no different from the other third worlders who come in, refuse to work, and want a handout.”

      Six million more Jews and six million fewer people like Davit and Britain would not be in such a shocking mess.

    • Can you link to a reputable site that substantiates that figure of ‘ 50% of Hasidic Jews in Tottenham are on public assistance’.

      Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

      • He pulled it out of his racist ass. Jews are brought up with a work ethic and while they may have a range of incomes, from working class to upper class, they don’t take public assistance.

        The commenter shows his ignorance. It was hassidics, not orthodox, that were in the video. Orthodox dress and shave like everyone else but wear yarmukes. Hassidics are the ones with the distinctive hair styles and clothing.

  19. Pretzelberg: a single attempt to explain to you. If the Guardian prides itself on never mentioning race, religion or ethnicity and sticks to this while describing violence looting & arson you being to realise that not mentioning these factors is a very serious and basic principle.

    That they break this once, just once, it must have real meaning and purpose for them.

  20. Pingback: The Guardian Of Hate : Israellycool

  21. Why does the G. employ Jews, then?

    Beecause the Jews are exactly as the others. There are some shit among them who doesn’t have any shame, and ready to help the Guardian to mask their hate of the Jews saying that look we have Jewish employees too.
    Yes and David Duke has Jewish friends…

  22. There is something wrong with the (reply) facility. My comments are not appearing in the correct position.

  23. ‘Time 2 kick them out’ the ethnic. Thay do this in a country that lets them in, get rid of them all, or people will get more and more pee’d, if i remeber right history germany 1930’s had the same problem. Hitler rose up 2 fight the jews that He says was taking over the country. Starting to look a lot like it may happen again.

    • If you remember right you’d notice that Jews furing the 1930’s were blamed to be both socialist, bolsheviks and capitalists.

      Hitler needed a scapegoat to unify the masses.

      The guardian reckons the masses hate the Jews these days.

      round and round it goes.

    • I can hardly believe the crap you are spouting “smith” , whoever you are, unless this is a badly conceived attempt at some sort of euphemism. Jews don’t sit back and listen to rationalizations about why they were brutalized anymore….there is never any justification for “getting rid” of Jews, only that ignorant stupid people want to find someone or something to blame for any political or social problems which have nothing to do with anything Jewish or Jewish related. In fact Jews have ceaselessly contributed to the social good wherever they happen to be…..scientists and doctors included. Had a polio vaccine “smith”: Developed by a Jew. Ever had any anti-biotics? Also helped in the development of antibiotics. Here is a link to the list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners, probably their work has enriched your life in someway. So think before you before speak out of your arse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates

  24. Check out the Guardian homepage. No mention of either Israel or Jews.

    A fantastic achievement. On the third day of British cities are burning they mentioned the Jews only once…

    Check CIF. Even now they had to publish two articles showing the USA in a negative light.

    Have you ever heard the story of the frog and the obsessive scorpion?

  25. I always thought Tottenham was a wealthy, predominately white area, with a sizable Jewish population. (Their Football team is associated with Jews)

    But according to Wikipedia-

    “South Tottenham is reported to be the most ethnically-diverse area in Europe, with up to 300 languages being spoken by its residents.[8]

    Tottenham has the highest unemployment rate in London and the 8th highest in the United Kingdom, and it has some of the highest poverty rates within the country.”

  26. The page is broken and comments no longer appear in order. somebody broke the HTML. Pity, was getting fiery…

  27. Pingback: London Riots Through the Lens of the Guardian — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  28. Pingback: Notorious Judeophobic Guardian Reports on London riots omits the race or ethnicity of rioters – but, still mentions Jews | Conservatives for America

  29. Pingback: Emeutes à Londres : Le Guardian accuse des Juifs d'avoir « raillé » la police | Europe Israel - analyses, informations sur Israel, l'Europe et le Moyen-Orient

  30. Pingback: Europa camina hacia una nueva Shoah | PATRIA JUDIA

  31. Non Edited version of the Guardian quote:

    “The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10.

    But families and other local residents representative of the area – black, Asian and white, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community –also gathered to watch and jeer at police.” END OF QUOTE

    I think this ends the disscussion from the very start! As already pointed out by berlonski on August 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm (above).

  32. Pingback: THE GUARDIAN’S RIOTOUS TIME: SLURRING THE CHASIDIM OF LONDON | RUTHFULLY YOURS

  33. I hate to burst the cifwatch bubble, but this article is completely misleading…..

    The cited excerpt on this page is, ‘The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10….But families and other local residents, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community, also gathered to watch and jeer at police. [emphasis mine]‘

    However, if you click on the link and actually look at the article you will see the true text is:

    ‘The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10.

    But families and other local residents representative of the area – black, Asian and white, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community – also gathered to watch and jeer at police.’

    So, if anyone had bothered to check you would have seen that the writer of this cifwatch article has actually taken the time to EDIT OUT the bits of the article that he felt did not help his case… Grammar lesson, in this instance, the hyphens act to highlight the list of racial groups observed in the riot.. The guardian clearly refers to black, asian and white as well as Hasidic Jews… So all the self-righteous and outraged souls here can actually rest easy.

    Well done cifwatch, usual high standard of research obvious as always….

  34. Pingback: The Atheist Conservative: » Low intensity warfare in France

  35. The Guardian has always been anti-Semitic and slurs Jews and Israel whenever possible. It is not surprising that the rag spikes the fact that the rioters were primarily blacks and Muslims, but takes a cheap shot and the chance to slur … yet again … Jewish people.

    I am actually reminded of the coverage of the Los Angeles riots, in which the Los Angeles Times tried to pretend they were “Rainbow riots.” In fact, though, the rioting was about half-black and half-Latino. And of the latino half, the vast bulk were Salvadorans.

  36. Pingback: Coren: “Cameron, an emasculated man” « Snaphanen

  37. Pingback: UK: How scared are reporters to tell the public the truth about the race of many of the London rioters? — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  38. Pingback: THE GUARDIAN LETS SLIP ITS DEEP ANTISEMITISM AS A REPORTER INSINUATES JEWS ARE BEHIND THE RIOTS! | 4international

  39. I have often viewed Anglo-Saxons and Jews as being similar in some regards; ambitious, clever, industrious, multi-faceted, slightly …impatient with other cultures that seem to lack the drive or ambition to effect change in their lives or society at large yet sheepish and awkward about their own exceptionality, filled with cultural and personal guilt/psychological baggage about civility, morality and propriety, able to influence the progress & direction of the world to an extent that is entirely out of proportion to their modest numbers. They’ve been at political odds, on occasion, in Israel and in Britain, but the similarities are still there.

    Both cultures are jeopardized both externally and from within by “liberal” types. The new left hates Jews, their traditions and “traditionality” and says, “Problem? What problem?” when the negative impacts of their beliefs and policies are pervading the lives of people across their country and around the world. There are times when it’s necessary to call a spade a spade > unfortunate choice of words, I know!

    • (sigh) As correctly noted elsewhere, the original text for this had no references to black, Asian, or white residents being idiots in Tottenham. It did have a negative reference to ONE ethnic group in the area, which is A) what CiF Watch pointed out and B) what the text you are for some reason touting as “original” changed into something more accurate and therefore less biased. Please do your research next time before you pontificate.

  40. Thank you for the good writeup. It in truth was a leisure account it. Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we keep up a correspondence?
    Hey there, You have done an incredible job. I’ll definitely digg it and in my view suggest to my friends. I am sure they will be benefited from this site.

  41. I simply desired to appreciate you yet again.
    I do not know the things that I would have taken care of in the absence of
    those tricks documented by you on such a subject matter.
    It was an absolute horrifying concern in my circumstances, nevertheless taking note
    of a skilled form you managed the issue took me to cry over gladness.
    Now i am thankful for your guidance and in addition expect you find out what a powerful job that you’re doing instructing people today thru your website. Most probably you’ve never encountered all
    of us.

Comments are closed.