Month: February 2016

Dear Mrs Birbalsingh,

I am writing this letter because I have reviewed your article on your explanation of the historical context of the London Riots and I disagree with your agenda.

Firstly, you have made a statement declaring you want to know what people are so angry about due to the death of Mark Duggan. I believe you raised that point due to what you have seen portrayed in the media, as they have framed the death of Mark Duggan at the hands of the Metropolitan Police, where he seemed to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, in a stereotyping way. The media claim that Mark Duggan was involved in a shoot out with the Metropolitan Police, in an attempt to stop them from catching him. I understand you know that he was involved in gang culture activity, however you haven’t really thought about this or researched it in depth. Meanwhile, the people who are actually affected by this are angry, because the media and the IPCC have determined the context of the London riots as black people doing what they supposedly do best. They have also described Mark Duggan as nothing more than a gangster from Tottenham, and to manipulate the story and the situation, have even cropped out a picture of him holding a heart. People feel like the IPCC should have acted to take responsibility upon themselves, because they, as well as me, don’t think he should have been killed by the police since he wasn’t shooting at them.

Secondly, my understanding of your argument is that the London Riots were caused for no reason and people are just exaggerating the deaths of black people caused by the Metropolitan Police. You did mention some facts regarding the crime rate caused by black people and then you passed it on to the Eastern Europeans. I noticed you left out the English ethnicity when you had explained the crime rate statistics. My interpretation of this has to be that you think all English people are perfect and they are crime-free.

Thirdly, it is a fact that more than 300 innocent black people have been killed by the police since 1998. It is also a fact that black people today in 2016 are up to 17.5 times more likely to be stopped by the police than white people. The death of Stephen Lawrence was an act of institutional racism, as shockingly highlighted in the 1998 public inquiry by Sir William Macpherson; amazingly, the police as an organisation, who were meant to understand and interact with the community, seem not to realize that they are playing their part in community tensions. This is not the first time there have been London riots. There were London riots in 1981 and 1985, arguably caused by stop and search operations by the Metropolitan Police officers, leading to highly charged relationships between the black communities and the Metropolitan Police.

Lastly, the difficult relationship between the police and the black community has been going on for a really long time; the London Riots started over 20 years before the riots which you have written your article about. I think it’s fair to say you are biased: you have just looked in depth into the media, understanding their point of view and re-used it in your argument to raise your thoughts heavily and make false judgments towards black people. The London riots originally started because black people felt mistreated by the police – it was a reaction showing that they had enough. As you can see, it’s reignited once again, due to the death of a man that was killed by the police. Surely, you can see the connection here. All through your article, you have just merged black people and crime into a single concept, without looking in depth into the subject at all or stating the key facts. My advice to you is don’t compose an article being so confident about making false judgments when you haven’t got the full context, and most of all don’t make one stereotype stand for an entire community.

Yours sincerely,

Malik Mhina

Dear Mrs Hopkins,

I came across your article ”Rescue boats, I’d use gunships to stop migrants”, and I have a clear understanding of your hatred towards migrants coming to England. I’m writing this letter to give my thoughts and opinions on your article, as I disagree with your agenda and your concept of migrants.

Firstly, you state that you would be happy to be shown bodies floating in the water and skinny people looking sad. I find this very interesting because it seems to me you want to grab the attention of the reader. You have done this quite well by saying these things in such a graphical way. I may be wrong, but I’m convinced that if you were to be shown these things in real life you would feel, to a certain extent, some sort of remorse compared to the way you imagine you would feel.

Secondly, you make it clear that you have compassion for British drivers that end up with a fine every time what you call a ”plague of feral humans” ends up in their truck. I do agree with your sense of compassion towards the drivers because they end up with a fine, however in the same sentence you describe the migrants as ”feral humans”. My interpretation of the cruelty that you parade in your article is that you are trying to grab the readers’ attention in a way that puts them on the edge of their seats wanting to know what more negative stuff you have left to say, which I see as a pattern you have executed well. However, I think describing migrants as feral humans is offensively condemnatory, considering they are only trying to pursue opportunities and live a better life.

Thirdly, at times I wondered if you were writing this article as a letter to the British army, considering you seem so eager to ”use gunships to send these boats back to their own country”. If migrants bother you that much you should maybe write a letter to the British government asking them to fund the countries that the migrants – or, let’s take your word for it, ”feral humans” – originate from.

Lastly, in conclusion, you do a good job of keeping the reader interested by stating your desire to get rid of migrants and then re-stating your desire, by breaking it down in stages, and using a form of repetition which conveys the image of no remorse towards migrants, who you see as an abomination.

You should really take time to think about what you say, because I’m sure that some of the food that you enjoy eating originated from other countries, as well as the clothes you wear and the products you use for your body. You make it clear that you have compassion for British tax payers, however I don’t see how this is relevant in your argument because migrants will have to pay tax once they start working here. You are acting like all the money in England belongs to you, and all the jobs available should only be granted to the people that live in England. However, you’ll find that migrants have much more ambition as to how they fulfill their jobs in their desire to earn money. Perhaps you are the ”feral human”, and I think you are causing harm to yourself but you’re probably too domineering to realize that. My main advice to you for the future is to think before you speak.

Yours sincerely,

Malik Mhina