Some very good points being made by all.
I tend to like to see facts that back up the words being spoken.

Given that the latest 'troubles' were a reaction to the murder of George Floyd by a Police Officer, and the claims of Black people being disproportionately killed around the world by the Police, then it seems reasonable that there would be some actual evidence out there to support it.

There isn't, and unfortunately for those who seek to promote the argument, then what statistics there are, tend to destroy the argument.

A couple of quick ones, found with very little effort.

A Police Officer in the USA is 18 times more likely to be shot and killed by a Black person, than an unarmed Black person is, to be shot and killed by Police.

In the UK it is claimed that Black people are disproportionately (3 times) more likely to die in custody than a White person.

The population of the UK is approx. 3% Black, yet the Criminal Justice statistics show that 10% of those convicted of crime are Black.

In London, in 48% of murders, the suspects are Black. For the rest of the UK, in 13% of the murders the suspects are Black.

This would tend to suggest that Black are disproportionately more likely to enter into custody.

Now, I'm sure that there are many socio-economic factors that affect those figures, in exactly the same way as there are other factors involved when someone dies in Police custody.
If those who seek to vilify the Police use facts, then, surely fire, should be used to fight fire.

I apologise in advance, to anyone I may have offended by using facts.

For sure.
We can have dossiers and files implicating countries of harbouring weapons of mass destruction innit?
Go across and murder tens of thousands of innocent women and children.
If it needs to fit , it'll be made to fit.
Anyways, were still waiting for where you garner your wholly neutral news info?

Way off-topic but I find the widely varying perception of the BBC fascinating.
The far left seem to denounce it as a right wing govt mouthpiece and at the same time many on the right scream that it's too left leaning.
The implication then is it's fairly centrist in its outlook.
It's far from a perfect institution and I think it's has become a little too obsessed with appearing 'balanced' but it seems to have a far less pronounced editorial slant than many news sources out there.

I hadn't added or twisted any words? It was straight from Cambridge dictionary

you completely missed my point, but it happens when you are more obsessed with who posted as opposed to the post itself.

give yer head a bang and get over yourself daft lad.

I was simply after you clarifying your meaning of 'religion'