Sky News anchor Adam Boulton plumbed the depths of crassness this morning by telling a Grenfell justice campaigner that the survivors’ objection to the government’s appointment of Sir Martin Moore-Bick to head the public inquiry into the tragedy was just because the judge is “white and middle class”.
And then went downhill from there.
Ignoring Grenfell spokeswoman Sue Caro’s clear and logical explanation of the survivors’ objections to the judge based on his judicial record, Boulton told Caro:
Is there any truth in the fact that you object to the judge because he’s white and middle-class, aren’t you?
then, after she gives a further, lucid explanation:
Do you think this is helpful? I mean you strike me as being white and middle class as well.
And when Ms Caro explains that as she lives in the community and her children have lost friends in the school, so there’s no equivalence between her and a judge from a ‘rarified’ background:
Well, it’s a statement of fact, isn’t it?
Ms Caro handled this nonsense with exceptional grace, which made her statement that Boulton had made “quite an offensive comment, actually” all the more pointed.
Here’s the video, around 4 minutes long:
The survivors, families and neighbours of Grenfell Tower are entitled to a proper investigation of what happened and they are perfectly entitled to ask for it to be run by someone with ‘real world’ experience who can understand their daily reality – but they’re being criticised for having an opinion and are seeing that opinion denigrated and misrepresented.
The victim-blaming continues. Can’t imagine why they would have misgivings about the government’s public inquiry – which should be a public inquest – run by an Establishment figure.
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Sue Caro gave an articulate, detailed and comprehensive summation of the community’s reasonable objections to the particular judge appointed. Adam Boulton’s response was to completely ignore everything she had said and ask an offensive question unrelated to her remarks. He isn’t fit to be a reporter. J
Reblogged this on Earth Changing Extremities.
Outrageous “journalism”
Pretty typical crass and insensitive Adam Boulton, especially when he detects that his Tory friends are under fire as K&C council is.
A ‘middle-class’ judge?
Do me a favour…
It’s interesting that Mr Boulton asks directly “…is it (the fact of the judge’s colour and class) an issue?” and the lady doesn’t actually take the opportunity to say words to the effect of “no” , but instead takes offence at the question.
As an aside the famous(infamous) “Milton Keynes” judgement referred to was indeed reversed by the SC, but the principle of out of area housing remained in place, so long as the necessary processes were followed.
As another aside the article’s headline is (by design?) quite misleading, in that the words inside the inverted commas were only used within a question, and not made as a statement..
And indeed the first paragraph continues the apparent deception.
That’s coming from a white middle class middle aged mediocre man too. (The classic “4m’s” coined by Janet Street Porter on her stint at the BBC ).
I think that Mr Boulton may have seen this from David Lammy in a video on the Telegraph website credited to Sky News:
“A “white, upper-middle class man” should not have been appointed to lead the Grenfell Tower inquiry, a Labour MP has said.
David Lammy suggested Sir Martin Moore-Bick, a retired Court of Appeal judge, had “never” visited a tower block housing estate and urged him to spend a night on the 20th floor of one over the coming days.
He said it was a “shame” that a female or an ethnic minority judge had not been selected to lead the inquiry.”
So perhaps Mr Boulton’s question has some validity after all.
Graham, why?
How many residents were white middle classed people? I bet they all worked for one but being one I bet not and why not a Lady etc? That was the point David Lammy was trying to make I believe. Combined with virtually the first tings he said It will take years and it won’t answer all the questions you have. Well, what’s the point then I ask?
It’s just kicking it into the long grass time, it’s going to be another Hillsbought so why not get it right first time have a coroners inquiry and be done wit it. That’s the only way to get to the truth and all the truth.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
@disabledgrandad The headline and the
I’m making a few points.
1. The article’s headline is misleading in that the words used were a question, not a statement.
2. The article’s first paragraph is untrue – for the reason above.
3. The lady had the opportunity to just say something like – “neither class nor race are an issue, only the reasons I’ve already stated and I disassociate myself from Mr Lammy’s remarks”.
She chose not to, which raises a doubt in my mind as to whether race and class actually are an issue. Mr Lammy seems to think so and for him even gender seems to be an issue.
I don’t think the judge has actually said it will take years (although I stand to be corrected if a source can be quoted) . I understand the concern about the width of his remit, but again I’m not sure that those terms have yet been published.
Inquests have already been opened and adjourned into some of the identified dead; we must bear in mind that an investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is ongoing.
“The survivors, families and neighbours of Grenfell Tower are entitled to a proper investigation of what happened and they are perfectly entitled to ask for it to be run by someone with ‘real world’ experience who can understand their daily reality – but they’re being criticised for having an opinion and are seeing that opinion denigrated and misrepresented.
The victim-blaming continues. Can’t imagine why they would have misgivings about the government’s public inquiry – which should be a public inquest – run by an Establishment figure.”
Thank you for that Steve. I agree unequivocally with those two paragraphs.
Grenfell spokeswoman Sue Caro was clear and concise and much more courteous than the utterly crass Adam Boulton deserved.
Just to reiterate that inquests have been opened and adjourned on some of the victims.
An investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is ongoing.
I don’t see anything in that interview which is victim blaming. I see Mr Bolton asking whether the judge’s class and colour are an issue for Ms Caro and/or her organisation – a question to which he does not receive a reply.
Because it doesn’t deserve one.
Contemptuous turd that he is. He hasn’t been affected in any way, it’s not for boulton to determine the interests and appropriate the views of the people affected, directly or indirectly, and least of all tell the masses that’s what those people are about – without any substance whatsoever.; other than someone else (indirectly affected) having said it
But, being the completely detached, unremitting idiot savant you are, I couldn’t really expect you to understand that.
Reblogged this on elizapdushku's World.
@The Toffee
That’s my point. He’s not telling the masses anything – he’s asking a question. Mr Lammy had stated his view on the judge’s class and colour. Mr Bolton was asking whether Ms Caro and / or her organisation shared that view. Ms Caro did not answer so she/her organisation may share Mr Lammy’s view or they may not.
Wrong – AGAIN.
boulton (uncouth, oafish lickspittle that he is that he is) quite clearly asks: “Is there any truth in the FACT that YOU object…”
Notice the big words? FACT? YOU?
He’s dictating the narrative – NOT asking a question. He’s already made HIS mind up that she said (Or endorsed, or what have you) what Lammy had said and is telling YOU it’s a FACT – and YOU’RE swallowing the kool aid, like a proper brown-nosing, weasely murdoch worshipper should.
And then comes the crux: “IT’S A STATEMENT OF FACT, ISN’T IT?”
Despite the FACT that Ms Caro’s stance & reasoning was already explained to him.
Dolt.
“IT’S A STATEMENT OF FACT, ISN’T IT?” refers to Mr Boulton’s observation that Ms Caro is also white and middle class.
But Ms Caro had ample opportunity to, to coin a phrase, just say no to the original question.
The whole class/colour thing could then have been cleared up.