` January 2007 (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, you'd be very clear on what their positions are.  Davenport specifically says anti-white 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 member/supporter of, a rival gang.  This doesn't 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: I'm 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 doesn't preclude the other, maybe I didn't mean to preclude this, maybe therefore I can't 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 don't 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 you're applying to Angela Donald - I daresay most articles would have to be pared down because each advocate's statements do not sufficiently preclude their also adhering to alternative explanations.  - 19:20, 12`