A disturbing whiff of something unpleasant
Let nothing I'm about to write in this blogpost take away from the horrific nature of the hate crime committed against Ian Baynham, because that would be to cheapen the life of the victim. What happened to him was a disgusting act that should sicken anyone, a casual and hateful act of violence committed against someone simply because of who they are. Regardless of what I feel about the Daily Mail and its attitude, the crime that took place against Mr Baynham was a terrible and disturbing thing, and those who took part in the attack should rightly be punished for their part in it.
The headline on today's article (accessible here via istyosty - it won't give any page impressions to the Mail) reads like this:
Portrait of a private school savage: What on earth could have driven this 17-year-old from an elite school to kick a man to death - without a flicker of remorse?
This sets the tone for the article. Let's leave aside the word 'savage' for the time being. People who go to good schools shouldn't be committing crimes, so what on earth went wrong?
Her homophobic attack on gay civil servant Ian Baynham, 62, in the middle of Trafalgar Square was the kind of nihilistic crime we normally associate with shaven-headed, bull-necked Neanderthals, not a pretty, smartly dressed teenage girl — especially not one from a seemingly comfortable background who has enjoyed the benefits of an expensive education.
It is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this deeply troubling case.
No. I would venture at this point to say that it definitely isn't the most disturbing aspect of this deeply troubling case. The most disturbing aspect is the casual, callous nature with which Mr Baynham's life was taken from him - not that one of the participants went to a good school. The idea that people with 'shaved heads' commit crimes is a foolish stereotype; I have one, Buddhist monks have them, it's just a nonsense. I don't associate violence with any type of person.
The background of the killer Ruby Thomas - 17 years old, and captured in a series of photographs for readers to see, including one of her in school uniform aged 14 - is looked into, including the behaviour of her violent father, who himself stabbed a neighbour to death. And then there comes this:
But Ruby Thomas was also undergoing a more alarming transformation. She began emulating the language and mannerisms — or, at least, what she and others mistakenly perceived as the language and mannerisms — of black urban youth culture.
‘She talked as if she was black and never realised how completely ridiculous she sounded,’ said the former Sydenham pupil. ‘She would call herself a “gangsta”. She was almost obsessive about it.’
Indeed, when a friend told Thomas that she looked ‘mixed race’ in one of her Facebook photographs (in fact, the result of copious amounts of fake tan), she replied: ‘WhoooooHooo.’
But the ‘ghetto culture’ she had become obsessed with is also intrinsically associated with violence and sex. Her photo album charts her transformation from sweet youngster to a teenager in provocative poses that were trashy, brash and displayed an aggressive sexuality.
Here's where I find the first whiff of something unpleasant about all this. It's the equating of black culture with violence and 'aggressive sexuality'. Now I'm not saying that there isn't that strand to some black culture; but I wonder what conclusions we're being asked to draw from all this. Does the teenager putting on fake tan become violent and 'trashy' because she wants to be black? Is that what 'black urban youth culture' is all about?
The appalling details of the attack are retold, including this nugget:
Remember, also, that the attack took place, not in a back street or some godforsaken inner-city ghetto, but in the middle of a capital city landmark, Trafalgar Square.
I know this is boilerplate Daily Mail pearl-clutching, but I just find there's a stench of something pretty nasty running underneath it. Not just the racial element, but the idea that the 'sexually aggressive' woman should also have become physically violent, as if those aspects are also linked - a slight whiff of misogyny to accompany the 'black urban youth culture' nods and winks.
And then there's that word 'savage' in the headline, as a noun. I don't know what to make of that at all. I'd like to think it's just hyperbole to describe what is a truly awful crime, the whole 'feral youngsters' tag that gets bandied around. But then I look at the other aspects to the story and I am not sure.
As I said at the beginning, nothing should take away any of the shock that people will feel over the sickening crime committed against an innocent man. Compared to which, it's easy to conclude that an undercurrent of mild racism and misogyny in a story about the crime isn't something to be concerned about. And of course, it is nothing as serious or grave in comparison. But, nevertheless, it is there. The idea that someone who went to a 'good' school (and who should therefore be middle class) is the most disturbing aspect of the case. The idea that 'black urban youth culture' is intrinsically violent. The idea that a 'sexually aggressive' woman is also a criminal. There's a whiff of something unpleasant there.
Related posts:



December 21st, 2010 - 13:04
I did wonder just how necessary it was of the mail to post the Facebook photo of her at age 17 in order to tell the story. That choice of picture seems like titillation at best!
December 21st, 2010 - 17:11
The Mail have a long tradition of showing readers just what a Disgusting Thing the Thing they’re Disgusted about is, particularly if the Disgusting Thing is young and female. They’re like showbiz agent on Knowing Me Knowing You:
“I obtained some photographs that were frankly unpublishable.”
“And are they in the book?”
“Yes they are.”
December 21st, 2010 - 13:06
Surely, Ian Baynham had it ‘coming to him’ because of his ‘lifestyle’? Oh sorry, the article wasn’t written by Jan Moir. One thing you can rely on with the Mail: consistent in its inconsistency!
December 21st, 2010 - 13:52
It’s scary. It really is…
December 21st, 2010 - 14:01
I wouldn’t call it a whiff of something unpleasant, I would call it a putrid, pungent, overpowering stench of class, race and gender prejudice.
December 22nd, 2010 - 07:52
Exactly. Although isn’t the trick of the Daily Mail to allow it’s core readership to fell like they’re better than everybody else, because of their status within society, because of their class, race and gender?
I say trick. You’d have to be pretty robotic not to smell and notice the insinuation of this piece.
Do you think the readers, those who buy the paper or bookmark the website to read everyday, experience any kind of stench? They must sometimes. I can’t read the stuff. It makes me heave.
December 22nd, 2010 - 07:57
“to feel, to fell” same thing really.
You could say they fall into the deep dark trenches of class, race and gender superiority. Never able to appreciate any other people in the world, ever. They think they’re climbing a ladder up the greasy pole but really they’re entering a foul place of no virtue whatsoever.
Or I just made this bit up to justify a spelling mistake.
December 21st, 2010 - 14:33
The shocking thing about this white privileged violent criminal is that she wasn’t really a white privileged person after all. She’d been possessed by a black gansta juju. I don’t know which makes me sicker – her crime, or the journoscum who came up with sickening pile of racist shit.
December 21st, 2010 - 14:47
The racist subtext of this article was really very disturbing, and the idea that the well-educated don’t commit crimes without the influence of so-called ‘black youth culture’ was out-of-touch with reality to say the least – I also like how the fact she acted “like she was black” seemed more of a reason for her violent tendencies than the fact her father stabbed a man 28 times when she was 10.
December 21st, 2010 - 14:59
Hmm. Agreed. What I’m really struggling with in this article is that it reads like a column. Is this news, or opinion? “some godforsaken inner-city ghetto” and numerous phrases and the tone throughout are confusing. Here are two Daily Mail reporters seemingly deciding they are qualified to explain a young woman’s motivations and the causes of her violence, as opposed to reporting what happened.
It’s not investigative journalism, just speculation. And for future, could we have more links to stories that don’t add to the Mail’s traffic? It makes sense.
December 21st, 2010 - 18:32
Typical Daily Mail:racism and sexism by insinuation while retaining deniability.
The Mail represents all the passive-aggressive unpleasantness lurking under the surface of 21st-century right-wingery – you can’t be openly racist, sexist, homophobic anymore, so you constantly make racist, sexist and homophobic insinuations. Anybody who objects is “uptight” or displaying “political correctness gone mad”.
Bastards.