The incident at a secondary school in Huddersfield in which Jamal, a Syrian ‘refugee’ boy of 15 was hit and had water thrown over him by an English male pupil aged 16, has been flogged to death by the left leaning mainstream media. It was one of the lead stories on the Sky News site and other media outlets have also joined in with Sky in what can only be described as virtue-signalling chorus of ‘poor little Syrian boy’. The media has been joined in this screeching and virtue-signalling by the heavily public funded Islamic grievance mongers of Tell Mama and others of those from the political and left activist communities.

This incident and he ‘poor little Syrian boy’ narrative has been pushed by the metropolitan Left, dodgy Islamic groups and most notably by the media. This attention is likely to continue and maybe get worse now that new revelations about how Jamal’s sister is alleging that she also was attacked without cause.

However, what we are being told about the story of Jamal may not be the entire truth, in fact, if claims that Mr Tommy Robinson’s has made in a recent video are to be believed, we are not even being told a fraction of the truth about this incident. Instead, according to Mr Robinson, we are being given a pro-Jamal, pro-’refugee’ narrative which may have little in common with the truth whether regarding the incident itself or what may have led up to it. After listening to Mr Robinson’s video on the subject, the feeling that this story is so highly spun that it could be classed as fake news, a feeling that I had when this story broke, became much stronger.

According to Mr Robinson, some pupils at the school and the parents of the English boy who is being prosecuted and hounded by the media and the Left over this incident, reached out to him after trying and failing to get their side of the story carried by the press. Mr Robinson said that even when they took their side of the story to the local paper the Huddersfield Examiner, they could not get a hearing. This is odd as including both sides or participants in a story is pretty standard practise in journalism and especially local journalism. You see this all the time, for example where a resident complains to a local newspaper about the council, and the paper prints both the initial complaint and a counter-statement from the local authority challenging the complaint. Why are the Huddersfield Examiner and other media not looking at and reporting both sides of this story? This is after all a story that is likely to have at least two sides to it.

The answer may come from information that is seemingly being supplied to Mr Robinson by children at the school, the family of the English boy and others in the area who are concerned about what is going on. The main allegation is that Jamal was not the innocent that the media and Jamal’s family are painting him as. Mr Robinson, working from the information that he has received, alleges that Jamal was involved in an incident where an English girl was beaten up so badly by a group of Muslim girls, along with Jamal, that she had to be removed from the school and homeschooled. Mr Robinson also said that the victim was beaten up a second time after the girls had been to court for a previous beating they’d give her.

Mr Robinson also alleges that the English boy who is being prosecuted for this incident was provoked and probably put in fear by Jamal on a previous occasion. Mr Robinson said that Jamal had threatened to stab the English boy and if this allegation is true, the attack on Jamal by the English boy is looking more and more like self defence against a violent teenage Muslim thug.

I must admit that finding out about the allegations about Jamal having thuggish tendencies and the intimation that Almondbury Community School has a Muslim gang problem is starting to make me question the narrative that has emerged about Jamal’s sister. Sky News is claiming that video footage has emerged of Jamal’s sister being pushed to the ground by other teenagers. The claim is coming from the Jamal’s family lawyer who said that the video was filmed this past Tuesday morning. The question I ask here is if Jamal is a wrong’un, as the correspondents to Mr Robinson suggest, is it not possible that Jamal’s sister is similarly a wrong’un as well? Could she even be being targetted because Jamal is so hated for his alleged thuggish tendencies? Was she involved in one of the Muslim gangs that seem to plague Almondbury School and which have been serious enough to have their members come before the courts? We do not know and it is only via the offices of Mr Robinson and other citizen journalists, that we are starting to get this counter-narrative to the one we are being fed by the media. Without a doubt there is much more going on here than we are being told by the media and the ‘poor little Syrian boy’ tale we are being told is beginning to look less and less like it could be the whole truth.

The difference in outcomes for the main protagonists in this overhyped story of the sort of school conflict and thuggery that happens at schools up and down the country and for a variety of reasons, is very stark indeed. Jamal the alleged teenage Muslim thug and the English boy who went for him, possibly after provocation or in self defence are being treated very differently by both the MetroLeft types, the media and the Establishment. Jamal and his family are now sitting on a pot of cash from a GoFundMe campaign, that is at the time of writing totalled £120,000 donated I suspect by virtue-signalling, emotion-led fools.

The English boy on the other hand has been treated extremely shabbily by all who can do so according to Mr Robinson. There have, according to information that Mr Robinson has been passed, been threats by Muslims to turn up at the school, the boy’s family have been attacked and they now live in fear and Leftists have doxed the family putting their identity in public view, something that would, I believe, contravene the 1933 Children and Young Person’s Act as the accused is a minor and therefore neither him, nor his family can be identified. Not that the law has ever put off the feral Left, they cannot see or do not care that doxing this family would more than likely expose them to violence from Muslims.

When this story first broke my first thought was that although I cannot condone bullying, there was a lot, an over the top amount in fact, of media and Establishment fuss over what is in reality a relatively minor physical incident. As I said, there is this and much worse that goes on in our schools every day and often between teenage boys who sometimes tend more than girls do, to be more physical with regards conflict. Not only is the coverage of this story given undue prominence in the mainstream media, these outlets have also forgotten what I would call journalism 101 which is to carry both sides of a story, especially a contentious one like this one. None of the MSM coverage of this story is what I would remotely call balanced, they are treating Jamal like he’s some sort of little angel, cruelly attacked for no reason at all by an appalling English oik. The reality, as we are starting to find out is much more complex.

All news publications have a spin that they put on stories to make them fit in with what their customer wants and they all have news preferences. The Sun for example has a different news agenda to the Guardian and will cover the same story very differently. However, what we are seeing in the coverage of the Syrian boy story is not spin, it’s far beyond that, it’s overtly one sided propaganda. Any fact or allegation that may challenge the ‘poor little Syrian boy’ narrative has been completely overlooked in much of the mainstream reporting that I’ve seen of this story. I know that there may be contempt of court issues surrounding this case that publications may need to be mindful of, but that does not excuse the fact that so much of the MSM reporting of this story has been woefully one sided. Why no mention of some of the allegations that have been made about Muslim gangs at the school for example which gives a context for the incident with Jamal? A lot of the information that Mr Robinson speaks of in his video is the sort of information that may well have been available to other journalists and, in the case of the Huddersfield Examiner, was allegedly given to reporters. If it is the case that reporters had information pertaining to the context of this incident then why are these allegations not being included in the subsequent stories about this incident? Could it be that to admit that Jamal may not be whiter than white in character, which the media has done, spoils the leftist narrative that everything in the multicultural garden is rosy? If the allegations made about the context of the incident and the prior behaviour of Jamal are correct then it challenges the mainstream media narrative about this incident. What we may have here is less a case of ‘poor little Syrian boy’ being attacked without reason and something much more akin to a thuggish ‘refugee’ who may have worn out his welcome by his behaviour, and encounters an English boy who had had enough and snapped. The mainstream media are not telling us the entire truth about this story, of that much it seems clear to me, the question is why are they doing this and what interest does it serve the nation as a whole to only promote one side of this story?