January  UTC  You have a little wriggle room there with Angela Donald but if you actually read Davenport Wylie and the statement from the Pakistan Forum Scotland figure youd be very clear on what their positions are  Davenport specifically says antiwhite racism is a myth  Wylie has an entire article to mention racial hatred as a motive and all we get are gangs gangs gangs  PFS specifically said the killing was not racist  The gang explanation is not simply the claim that there were gangs involved  It is a claim that Kriss was killed because he was mistakenly associated with or wrongly profiled as a membersupporter of a rival gang  This doesnt rule out racism of a sort use of racial profiling as one factor in misidentification but it DOES rule out the dominant narrative which is that Kriss was killed simply because he was white that the killers were just looking for a white boy to kill    With Angela Donald Im simply reading the obvious content of her statement  Speech occurs in a context  Omission conveys information because speakers are usually aware of seeking to convey meanings  If I say the Titanic crashed because it hit an iceberg that would normally rule out my thinking the Titanic was blown up by aliens  Now of course someone could technically argue  as you do with Angela Donald  that maybe aliens blew up part of this ship and made it hit the iceberg so maybe strictly speaking one reading doesnt preclude the other maybe I didnt mean to preclude this maybe therefore I cant be cited in support of the iceberg explanation  Clearly this is absurd  Now add further the condition that other people are coming out in favour of the alien explanation in large numbers and assume I add on the start of the statement I dont care about aliens  Would you still suppose I might support the alien theory when I added this qualifier in this context to a statement in support of an alternative view  So  if we interpret all statements with the strictness youre applying to Angela Donald  I daresay most articles would have to be pared down because each advocates statements do not sufficiently preclude their also adhering to alternative explanations