My name is Legion for we are many

Naming your demons is a beginning but it is not an end. I am a realist. I know and mostly understand my demons, but I am indolent when it comes to dealing with them.

And so it is with black crime in the UK. At first the police were reluctant to release statistics of serious crimes committed by blacks and indeed, thirteen years under Labour has ensured they these figures were suppressed. Recent data was only made available in the middle of this year, and even then, Freedom of Information Act requests were needed to get it out of them, which show that a vastly disproportionate number of blacks commit serious crime.

To say there is a conspiracy about the true extent of black criminality in the UK is an understatement. The Police are complicit, the academic establishment are complicit, the press are complicit and, until recently, so was the Government.

This is what a "leading academic" had to say:

Richard Garside, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, said: 'Given Britain's long history of racism and imperialism it should not greatly surprise us that black and minority ethnic groups are disproportionately members of social classes that have tended to experience greater victimisation and to be the subject of police attention.
'Just because the police treat black men as more criminal than white men, it does not mean that they are.' 

This is somebody who has actually been licenced to teach people and it is utter bollocks. Ascribing serious crime, such as rape and murder, to British Imperialism is a triumph of cognitive dissonance, and calls this nutter's professional credentials into question. (How fast do you think he would be removed if he had been shouting the truth from the rooftops?)

Until we learn that society must name its demons and confront reality, we shall live in a fools paradise and continue to blandly assert that white straight males are responsible for all the problems in the world and continue to target little old disabled ladies in order to make the flimsy lie a little bit more credible.


Jim Baxter said...

Predictors of chronic criminality are as follows:

Farrington and Painter (2004) researched whether risk factors for offending differed for males and females, by examining the brothers and sisters of males included in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. They concluded that the following most important risk factors are similar for brothers and sisters: low family income, large family size, attending a high delinquency rate school, a convicted father, a convicted mother, a delinquent sibling, parental conflict, separation from a parent, harsh or erratic parental discipline and poor parental supervision. Some factors predicted more strongly for sisters: low social class, low family income, poor housing, low praise by parents, harsh or erratic discipline, parental conflict, low parental interest in education and low parental interest in the children whilst others predicted more strongly for brothers: nervous fathers and mothers and poorly educated fathers and mothers. "In general, risk factors were better predictors of the offending behaviour of sisters than brothers" (Farrington & Painter, 2004, p. 3) and "risk assessment using family factors is likely to be more accurate for females than for males" (Farrington & Painter, 2004, p. 3).

Note what isn't mentioned. It isn't mentioned because the above are the common factors, not ethnicity.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Compelling material. I think it clearly needs to be factored in to the equation, and indeed must be.
But it backs up the idea that crime is a cultural phenomenon, that is, you are more likely to go into crime if your upbringing and surroundings have the factors described in the extract.

One would be going out on a limb to suggest that ethnicity has no part to play in serious crime though, or that a black youth who commits rape and murder is somehow a victim of British Colonialism, as the academic suggests.

The statistics are overwhelmingly compelling. It is not a question of iterpretation, any more than it is that 100% of British domestic terrorism emanates from Muslims.

It may be unpalatable, but it has to be faced as facts.

Jim Baxter said...

I seem to recall domestic terrorism not that long ago that had nothing to do with Muslims. There was what happened in the Admiral Duncan pub, to note just one example

Once again, criminal behaviour is best predicted by the factors noted above, not by ethnic origins.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

The guy who did the Admiral Duncan pub was a lone nutter. You cannot profile society for lone nutters or you and I would have been rounded up ages ago.

As with Irish Republican terrorism, I guess the police did not go around looking for gatherings of Amish, or if they did they were taking political correctness to new heights.

I don't know, but I imagine that during the IRA era, they observed the Irish community in cities and watched what they did.

Likewise, I expect the police to accept that crime among groups of young men who are of Afro-Carribean origin is disproportionately high and do something about it.

They did it in New York so why not do it here? Sure, crime goes hand in hand with deprivation and poverty but that is not an excuse to murder people or a concomtitant factor, otherwise the white poor and disposessed would figure higher in the stats, which they do not.

This issue has two very vocal sides. They can be summed up more or less in these two links, but what it shows is that emotion and political expediency, rather than cold logic, is influencing it.

It needs someone with more resources than me who can talk out of their mouths and not their arses to look at it properly. I wonder who might have a go for this blog?

Jim Baxter said...

The male 'lone nutter' tends to have support, actually, or in his head. He too is many, and merely the vanguard, the 'drummer boy'.