What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores?


by Flying Rodent    
8:09 am - December 8th 2009

      Share on Tumblr

Boggle-eyed Spectator bore Rod Liddle, who is one of many who seems to believe that both lies and bigoted boo-hoo are now legitimate weapons in the great battle against the awful liberal elitists, wrote that:

The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks.

It looks like the bugle has been blown, and every cheap, nasty bullshitter in the land has acknowledged its message… With the Tories almost certain to triumph at the next election, anyone who’s spent the last decade masquerading as a basically decent human being should now rip off their masks and show the world their hideous deformities.

Hence we get the hilarious spectacle of climate change skeptics raving about secret global Commie conspiracies, throwing around accusations of Stalinism and Hitlerian evil while clutching their little pearls about the connotations of the word “denier”.

We get the world’s Liddles railing against those awful blacks, and a whole load of bluntly racist shite hurled at Britain’s Muslim population under the comically transparent disguise of “opposing extremism”…. With the inevitable result of open celebration when the Swiss decide they need to curtail the rights of their religious minorities.

All of which is smuggled under the usual silly bollocks about leftist treachery, but is essentially the same populist lunacy that has led the Teabaggers and Sarah Palin in the US into a cul de sac of self-reinforcing, unelectable wingnuttery.

With no moderating force to reign in their most paranoid and belligerent pronouncements, the Teabaggers have been swiftly demoted from the status of “hard-working ordinary people/mad as hell/not going to take it any more” to “Gibbering cretins/comedy losers/get the hell away from us, dipshits”.

Stuff like Liddle’s post could only come out of a net-based operation like the Spectator, which has seen its traffic soar even as its political trajectory has taken it zooming out of the Earth’s atmosphere, bound for planet Radioactive Political Embarrassment at light speed. In an era of declining magazine sales, it’d take a brave and strong editor to ignore his readers’ demand for the red, red meat of raw right wing insanity. Thus do we get conspiracism, paranoia and outright race-baiting.

To which I can only say, well, good. Despite three decades of tabloid hysteria, most people are basically reasonable and decent individuals, and I am eager to see Britain’s right wingers disappear right up their own rectums in pursuit of ever-greater nuttiness. Veiled nastiness is devilishly difficult to combat, but open idiocy and naked meanness defeat themselves. The Labour Party have proved that one single-handedly.

Who knows? Maybe a majority of the electorate would read stuff like that Liddle column and think Finally, somebody said what we’re all thinking. Me, I reckon most of them would read it and think, Jesus, what a cunt.

I like the battlefield that the right wing fringe is preparing. They’re conceding the high ground of legitimate grievance against New Labour’s horrible incompetence and vindictiveness; positioning their guns where they’ll inflict maximum damage upon their own infantry.

I forget who it was who said that you should never interrupt an enemy when he’s making a terrible mistake, but it sounds like good advice. I’m just going to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch these jokers cut their own legs off at the knees.

Well, okay, I might poke them with a stick occasionally. Just for fun.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Flying Rodent is a regular contributor and blogs more often at: Between the Hammer and the Anvil. He is also on Twitter.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Humour ,Race relations


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Burrowing Rodent

All we need to do is counter these lies. They are lies, right?

@Flying Rodent

“Well.okay,I might poke them with a stick occasionally.Just for fun.

And how beffitting and delicioulsy ironic that you should finish with that sentence.
Yes,keeping on poking that dog,and poking that dog,and poking that dog—–just like society has been poked and poked for 40 years.
I can’t wait until it turns on the priest hood—the keepers to the Ministry of Truth and savages their leg off.
Yes.Go on,Poke them with a sharp stick–.Just for fun.
Moral android.

journeyman,

You didn’t really get the post, did you?

Remember that Rod Liddle is very much of the left, not the right. All you’ve proved is than neither end of the political axis has a monopoly on reprehensible pricks.

@Pagar

“journeyman,
You didn’t really get the post did you.?

You must be kidding.?
Flying Rodent and L.C.didn’t disappoint. Right on cue.
Maybe you didn’t get my point.
One things for sure.Western Society has got Flying Rodents point.
The point at the end of a sharp stick.And when you poke at it often enough,hey presto and it bites back.
It would be nice to be the only game in town.Wouldn’t it.?

“lies” “bigotted boo-hoo” “cheap nasty bullshiter” “hideous deformities” “raving”
“bluntly racist shite” “silly bollocks” “populist lunacy” “wing -nuttery”
“paraniod and belligerent” “Gibbering cretins/comedy loosers/get the heel away from us
dipshits” “raw right -wing insanity” “paranoia and outright race baiting.”
“ever greater nuttiness” veiled nastyness” “open idiócy” “naked meaness”

Well—looks like somébody had the audacity to break the rules and exercise their freedom of speech. Or “racism” as its known over here.
Boy. you guys really don’t want to share the table do you.
No wonder everybodies afraid to open their mouths.Just look at the invective above.
No doubt Flying Rodent will elaborate in detail as to just exactly what LIddle is guilty of.

“No wonder everybodies afraid to open their mouths.”

Sorry, but if there’s one thing you daft buggers are not afraid to do, it’s open your mouths. Have you read a LibCon immigration thread lately? Or read a newspaper, for that matter?

@Andrew: Rod Liddle is very much of the left

Well, “left” in the sense that he spends his days whingeing about political correctness, the nanny state, the greenies and those awful minorities on one of the country’s foremost right wing websites, for the entertainment of a massive gaggle of cackling right wing headbangers.

So that’s “left” in the sense that former Guardianista Melanie Phillips is “left”, I guess, which is significantly to the right of the Tories – like, out past Pluto to the right of the Tories on half her issues. Evolution springs to mind.

Shorter me: He pens your talking points in your publications for the perusal of your paying public. He’s your problem now, guys.

@Journeyman: looks like somébody had the audacity to break the rules and exercise their freedom of speech. Or “racism” as its known over here. Boy. you guys really don’t want to share the table do you. No wonder everybodies afraid to open their mouths.

??? Sorry if I wasn’t polite enough for you journeyman, but to clarify – I am strongly in favour of excitable, twitchy right wingers like yourself laying out your views in very great detail in public forums, in the most unambiguous terms. Go tell it on the mountain, brother – Testify!

Oh no “RACISM”, apart from in fact, it’s pretty much obvious to anyone that the Afro-Caribbean community does indeed account for a much high incidence of the given crimes. I don’t know what it is, there just seems to be so much anger in the community and such a lack of confidence to succeed and weird unrealistic goals amongst the youth “I wanna be a rapper/singer etc”

Robtro there is a prime example of the type of right wing discourse I’m keen to see given far greater prominence in the public eye. I’ve always been strongly in favour of people speaking their minds, and I think we’d all benefit if the electorate were repeatedly exposed to the deeply-held convictions of our nation’s social and economic conservatives.

No wonder everybodies afraid to open their mouths.

No wonder indeed. The Flying Rodent has terrified the country into total silence.

No wonder everybodies afraid to open their mouths.

Everybody apart from you? Aren’t you the brave one. I am afraid the “we’re being silenced” nonsense won’t wash.

Hi Rodent

If we are going to have a sensible thread (assuming that’s why you wrote the post) it’s best we get beyond the insults.

Can you link to any stats showing the numbers of blacks involved in street crime and how that relates to the overall demographic profile?

Then we’ll be able to demonstrate that Liddel is a tosser instead of just asserting it.

@Neil

“Sorry but if there’s one think you daft buggers are not afraid to do,its open your mouths”

Well,I guess we haven’t been trained enough to roll over and play dead on command.
I haven’t come across one single political view point that I posses which hasn’t been condemned with all the same invective that Flying Rodent uses above.
Take the E.U. for example.Gordon Brown promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and broke his promise. Maybe he lied just to humour the “wing nuts”like me.And no doubt many at L.C. applauded his neat little lie,because only raving conspiracy theory nationalists (Hitlerites) like me would be anti-E.U..
So rather than it being a group of people politely declining the generous offer of being a member of the E.U. we are declared loonies.

Yes I do read the newspapers,and I didn’t like the Immigrant Import Voter Gerrymandering Labour Treachery.It will cost them dearly,And yes,I am anti-immigration,but that is not a mental illness,but just a differénce of opinion.
If anything, taking everything under consideration,if there is any illness about,it would be the idea that immigration will proven to be the greatest blessing bestowed upon us.
This article is just growing panic among the Jack Straw/Barroso/B.B.C/ Guardianista/campus radical (pop culture) mafia that the tyrannical control they have exercised over the “NARRATIVE” are not going to get the unopposed run home to the finishing line that they feel is there Manifest Destiny:
Or one commentator once put it.
“they don’t like it up em”

#2

Here’s the deal.

You get to say pretty much whatever you like.

Everyone else (including Flying Rodent) gets to say what we think of you and your comments.

Does that sound fair? I’m not an expert in right-wing definitions of free speech, but it’s how I thought it worked.

15. FlyingRodent

Can you link to any stats showing the numbers of blacks involved in street crime and how that relates to the overall demographic profile?

Gladly – yer stats are presented in a browser-breaking PDF here…
http://bit.ly/6Dzqpw …But you can consider me largely in tune with Alex Massie’s comments on Liddle’s tone and intent here. http://bit.ly/52TNcc

I am, however, not amenable to any calls of “let’s have a nice, sensible and polite discussion about highly-sensitive racial issues in the context of Liddle’s article”. The whole point of Rod’s piece was that it was neither nice, sensible nor polite, but was instead raw chunk of red meat deliberately designed to set the baying hounds in his comments section barking and woofing about how awful those black people are and how you can’t even badmouth an entire ethnic minority with inaccurate generalisations without being called “racist” these days. People are free to respond as if Rod were writing in good faith if they like, but I wouldn’t advise it.

In short, when people intentionally conduct themselves like insufferable pricks, they lose their informal right to have their cries of Boo-hoo-hoo, why are all these people being so nasty to me? taken seriously, and that applies to the internet just as it does to the pub.

I don’t think we can just shrug our shoulders and assume that the right-wing nutters must be getting nuttier. Labour and other’s on the ‘centre-left’ consistently buying into and repeating the lines/lies of the right (British jobs for British workers, being tough on benefit scroungers and the- entirely serious and genuine problems- of too many single mothers and immigrants) is consistently shifting the terms of political debate and giving the right free reign to spread its nastiness. Trying to compromise with the nutters (as with the insistence that we “engage” with the concerns of BNP voters) is just having the opposite effect- legitimising their otherwise indefensible positions.

17. FlyingRodent

This article is just growing panic among the Jack Straw/Barroso/B.B.C/ Guardianista/campus radical (pop culture) mafia that the tyrannical control they have exercised over the “NARRATIVE” are not going to get the unopposed run home to the finishing line that they feel is there Manifest Destiny.

I know, I’m terrified of losing the NARRATIVE – that’s why I’m urging right wingers to speak openly and unhindered, then let the electorate decide for themselves.

Just wait ’til we’ve got the death panels going, though. We’ll have all you John Galts bowing to our Muslimonazi overlord Barack Hussein Obama yet.

18. Left Not Liberal

“I’ve always been strongly in favour of people speaking their minds”

Or “SpEeking they’re braNes” if you will.

Nife criMe – I blame Lethal Bizzle!

“Gerrymandering”… “Treachery”… “radical mafia”… “tyrannical control”… “Manifest Destiny”…

Please, do go on! Such reasonable and measured criticism deserves the widest audience possible.

@13 “I haven’t come across one single political view point that I posses which hasn’t been condemned with all the same invective that Flying Rodent uses above.”

That is a notable trend.

Which leads me to wonder – have you ever considered the possibility that every one of your opinions is offensive and wrong?

Just a thought.

@tim f

I wouldn’t have it any other way. And I have payed a couple of compliments before to L.C. for not following Comment Is Free If You Agree With Us—hair-trigger-finger of the Guardian.
It does not go unappreciated or unoticed.
But that might not be the case generally out in the wider world,And I percieve there is a growing resentment to the feeling that our self-determination is being usurped and people are being rail-roaded by forces they have no control over.
We are not Chinese or Africans……yet.
Flying Rodents article,I reckon,is just one more sign that has registered this trend or phenomena,which does seem to be growing.
It must feel a little odd for a lefty to be standing there witnessing this in dumfounded amazment,and wondering where its going to end:
Nightmares of “Krystal Nacht”no doubt.
Yes free speech for all Tim f –but blasphemy and heresy for none.

22. Dick the Prick

I don’t know if i’m a right wing nut but then again immigration doesn’t bother me as I live in a very middle class area, racism doesn’t bother me as I don’t work in a town centre, single mothers don’t bother me as i’m single, education policy doesn’t bother me as i’ve done all that, the EU doesn’t bother me as i’m already rich – I dunno – probably best if I just ignore everyone really and just take my cash as a Conservative and worry about planning applications and sorting my mates out.

How’s that for right wing nuttery, elitist, social conservatism for ya? Like them apples? Oh, i’m sorry, it’s only high minded liberals who get to have an opinion – gadzooks – best go fix the routes where the gritters are going as that’s all i’m fit for!

@jon

“have you ever considered that everyone of you view points was wrong”?

(1) Oh.you mean like the example I gave above (13) about being anti-E.U.?
Go on–make my day.
(2) Wrong according to who?

(3) Yes,I have considered it but I keep on getting mugged by reality

Is “Robtro there” meant to be directing your statement at me i.e “Robtro, there” or did you mean to say “Robtro here”, using me as an example for your comment? Grammar my lad, it’s important for a reason.

FlyingRodent re: Comment 15,

Don’t you think it all funny that having taken the trouble to write a topic titled “What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores?” you then link accross to Alex Massie’s post in the Spectator to support your discussion?

By the way, is Martin Bright boggle-eyed as well?

Surely the best reaction would be to ignore him?

28. FlyingRodent

@Dick it’s only high minded liberals who get to have an opinion

I’m not sure why this confusion keeps keeping in – I strongly urge you to state your opinions in as many public fora as you can find, with whatever level of passion you think is appropriate. I know my writing isn’t Shakespeare, but I thought I’d made that pretty clear. So no, @Richard, I don’t think Liddle should be ignored, since I think his views and those of other right wingers who agree with him should be brought into the political mainstream for public discussion and – I believe – instantaneous mockery and rejection.

Don’t you think it all funny that having taken the trouble to write a topic titled “What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores?”

I called my post And The Assholes Shall Inherit The Earth – LibCon admins obviously didn’t like the title. For what it’s worth, my post also linked here… http://bit.ly/VynQc …Which is as neat a summary of my opinion on the Liddles of this world as I can muster.

I wish I could be as sanguine as FR, but I’m not. In the US, the loons took over the Republican party some time ago- certainly by the end of Clinton’s Presidency- but George W. Bush got to the White House none the less. How? Because he mastered the art of signalling to the nutters that he was with them whilst using language that would attract sufficient ‘moderate’ voters. Large chunks of his poicy were nonetheless utterly crazy.

The current low ebb of the Republican party has something to do with the fact that nuttiness is now in-your-face rather than coded- Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck rather than Bush-Cheney. But it’s got rather more to do with the fact that the economy blew up under a Republican President. Here, things went pear-shaped while Labour were in power, which makes things a lot easier for the Tories. And as Bush proved, moderate voters will support a leader who talks plausibly and calmly, which is the main (and perhaps the only) talent possessed by David Cameron.

So I think we do need to be very worried about the size of the Tories’ lunatic fringe. The fringe’s existence won’t stop the Tory Party gaining power, but it’s quite likely to push policy in some fairly mad directions.

“This article is just growing panic among the Jack Straw/Barroso/B.B.C/ Guardianista/campus radical (pop culture) mafia that the tyrannical control they have exercised over the “NARRATIVE”

I, as one of those dirty left-leaning liberals, love that all of our mainstream media is on my side. Like me, they are:
- pro-EU
- pro-immigration
- pro-drug legalisation
- pro-environment
- anti-capital punishment
- pro-inheritance taxes
- pro-more progressive taxation

… wait a minute…

This is exactly the same as the Fox News nonsense. A country’s largest cable news network, watched by tens of millions, gets to say *exactly* what it wants (which often involves mistruths, incredible exaggerations and outright lies), but simultaneously complain about how all those dirty liberals aren’t letting the people hear the ‘truth’.

So I think we do need to be very worried about the size of the Tories’ lunatic fringe. The fringe’s existence won’t stop the Tory Party gaining power, but it’s quite likely to push policy in some fairly mad directions.

Well, maybe. All parties are coalitions, and all coalitions have an uneasy tension between the mainstream and the more, er, concentrated varieties. But it is perhaps worth pointing out that the boggle eyed loonies identified in this piece are Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips. Neither are Tories. Liddle was, if you remember, fired from the Today programme because of his expressed anti-Tory views. So, barking loon he may be, but Tory barking loon he isn’t.

30 – I think that you’ve just described the BBC haven’t you?

I’m not sure why this confusion keeps keeping in – I strongly urge you to state your opinions in as many public fora as you can find, with whatever level of passion you think is appropriate.

Because a sense of persecution is the essence of wingnut. Hand them a megaphone, and they’ll use it to scream about how you’re trying to silence them.

Tim, fair point about coalitions, and if every Tory front-bencher had your views I would be deeply un-alarmed about a Conservative government.

But as to Liddle being anti-Tory: he slagged off the Tories when New Labour were safely in power and he was writing a Guardian column. The remark you refer to was absolutely typical brain-dead triumphalist New Lab rubbish, about how the fox-hunters typified the dreadful Tory shower who had been swept out of power forever.

Now New Lab are the ones heading out of power, and astonishingly Liddle is writing brain-dead rubbish for the Spectator. Rats do not board sinking ships.

Please, please, please, just keep pushing the Rod Liddle attack.

It looks really great that you are ignoring the gang crime problem so you can try to score political points.

You guys and PickledPolitics have never made ONE post about the gun and gang crime problem affecting black kids, then you criticise others who DO post about it.

Why don’t you show some leadership and make a responsible post about the actual problem, instead of this pathetic attempt at point scoring??

I’d like to second AC’s comments, and call for more people to solve the gangs and guncrime problem by making up stories about how it’s all caused by blacks. There’s no doubt that there would be fewer murders if more of us had the guts to indulge in a little racist lying.

37. FlyingRodent

I’d like to second AC’s comments, and call for more people to solve the gangs and guncrime problem by making up stories about how it’s all caused by blacks.

Headshot! Fifty points, AC-130 inbound.

Dan Hardie, you are one of several commenters on left wing blogs who are looking swivel eyed by denying the problems affecting the black community.

Trevor Phillips has pointed out that parents in the black community are the ones who most want to see the problem solved. Why are people like you trying to deny the problem?

Ratboy you are the one who is smokescreening.

As if people in London care more about some blogger than they do about solving the problem that is wiping out young black lives.

34 – Quite. One thing that Liddle is consistent in is being a prick. Or, more moderately, being a professional stirrer, wind-up artist and ‘provocateur’.

The early signs are, I think, that the headbanger tendency in the Tory party is currently out of the loop (which probably explains the acres of coverage given here to the views of Dan Hannan who, whatever his virtues might be, is only a backbench MEP, about as lowly a rank as can be imagined). This is probably to a certain degree a ‘don’t frighten the audience’ tactic, but I really don’t see Cameron as anything other than a mainstream county Conservative.

In other words, basically Euro-sceptic (rather than Euro-nihilist), instinctively small state, and above all pragmatic rather than ideological. When John Redwood is given a policy-forming role, or when Liam Fox becomes a representative figure on the front bench – that’s when it’s time to worry that the Tories have been captured by the right of the party.

Mr Rodent,

Not only are you brilliantly accurate – you’re brilliantly witty.

This bit’s going down particularly well with one’s immediate companions:

“I like the battlefield that the right wing fringe is preparing. They’re conceding the high ground of legitimate grievance against New Labour’s horrible incompetence and vindictiveness; positioning their guns where they’ll inflict maximum damage upon their own infantry.

“I forget who it was who said that you should never interrupt an enemy when he’s making a terrible mistake, but it sounds like good advice. I’m just going to put my feet up, crack open a cold one and watch these jokers cut their own legs off at the knees.”

LOL.

Keep it coming, bro.

PS – by amazing coincidence, when I read Liddle’s comments, the exact words that came out of my mouth were ‘Jesus, what a cunt.’

You guys and PickledPolitics have never made ONE post about the gun and gang crime problem affecting black kids

The point is, there isn’t a feckin’ gun and gang crime problem “affecting black kids” in the sense that you mean.

There’s a gun and gang crime problem that affects kids from poor backgrounds living in god-and-society-forsaken estates; a fairly high proportion of those kids are black; and a much higher proportion of black kids than white kids come from those places (since a much higher proportion of black kids than white kids have poor and/or recent immigrant parents).

Those demographic factors mean that levels of involvement in gun/gang crime are higher among black kids on average than white kids on average, even though there’s no real difference for kids from the same background. Black and white Etonians are equally unlikely to get into violent crime; black and white kids who’ve been drinking cider on the street since they were 10 are equally likely to do so – but there are a lot more white Etonians than black ones…

So, if you’re not a bigot, the thing to address is “why is life so shit, violent, etc, on the estates where poor kids grow up?” (and that’s directly addressed by Unity’s post today on Southmead, among many others), and in the longer term “is the reason for more widespead poverty among black people purely their more recent immigration history, or is there ongoing racism in education and in the jobs market”?

OTOH if you are a bigot, then the thing to address is “why are black kids murderous thugs?”, because you want to encourage the answer “because they’re racially inferior and should be sent home”. And you should be called out on that, and regularly humiliated, mocked and slated as a bigot.

Kate Belgrave,

That analogy is only funny to people who misunderstand the gang problem and the wish that ordinary voters have to tackle it.

John B, keep it up. You really think it’s about class. Well done, uncle Karl will be proud.

@44, what, you’re denying there’s any social disorder and violent crime problem among underclass white youths? It’s interesting to know that the “blacks are savages” right-wing-posturing-point trumps the “Britain gone feral” right-wing-posturing-point.

44 – but it is all about class. It always is. On the most facile level, city law firms and other large financial institutions have been on a great big diversity kick for the last decade or more. They take it very seriously, because having a workforce consisting entirely of snow white middle class boys just looks bad now.

So now we all have workforces consisting of a lovely mix of white, black, brown and yellow middle class boys and girls. I have far more friends across racial divides than I do across class divides – especially since I stopped playing regular league cricket.

Because a sense of persecution is the essence of wingnut. Hand them a megaphone, and they’ll use it to scream about how you’re trying to silence them.

Funny because it is so true.

Actually, there is something similar on scienceblogs.com in their amusing guide to cranks. How to be a Crank, Step 4: Claim Persecution.

48. FlyingRodent

It looks really great that you are ignoring the gang crime problem so you can try to score political points.

As opposed to scaremongering about black kids committing crimes in order to score political points against multiculturalism? Unless, of course, you’ve got the sheer brass balls to pretend that Rod Liddle was issuing some heartfelt plea on behalf of black people in the inner cities. If so, his Waaaah, stabby-shooty black folk, I blame the multiculti lefties strategy was a funny way of demonstrating it, no?

Shorter – Epic Concern Troll Fail, Nul Points.

Black people are not ‘savages’, John B.

Some black kids are living amongst a gang culture imported from the USA that is specifically by and for black kids (olders and youngers).

Ratboy I’m not as concerned about multiculturalism as I am about the kids who are dying and living in fear every day.

Keep the attempted shutdowns coming though, it makes you look a bit stupid when they don’t work.

Also worth noting that the first commenter to address the gang crime problem in sensible terms gets dismissed with an ‘uncle Karl’ flick of the wrist.

What was that stuff earlier about shutting down the debate with ‘-ist’ words, again?

Stuff like Liddle’s post could only come out of a net-based operation like the Spectator, which has seen its traffic soar even as its political trajectory has taken it zooming out of the Earth’s atmosphere, bound for planet Radioactive Political Embarrassment at light speed. In an era of declining magazine sales, it’d take a brave and strong editor to ignore his readers’ demand for the red, red meat of raw right wing insanity. Thus do we get conspiracism, paranoia and outright race-baiting.

Sad, that. Whatever happened to declining in a gentlemanly fashion instead of vulgarly chasing sales? Bunch of spivs, I’m telling you. (Harrumph)

53. FlyingRodent

Ratboy I’m not as concerned about multiculturalism as I am about the kids who are dying and living in fear every day. Keep the attempted shutdowns coming though.

Uh, you’re claiming “attempted shutdowns” while insisting that people stop laughing at Rod Liddle and start coming up with solutions for kids who are dying and living in fear every day. Does this mean that those who laugh at Liddle also laugh right into the upturned, tear-streaked face of a dying child?! I think so!

Typed in all seriousness too, as far as I can tell. Once again, Epic Concern Troll Fail, with a generous side-serving of Hilarious Unintentional Irony Win.

Once again, Epic Concern Troll Fail, with a generous side-serving of Hilarious Unintentional Irony Win.

Listen mate, can you explain to the rest of us what social point is served by your ‘amusing’ little conceits?

You’re obviously more of a writer than a politician.

And yes I would like to see solutions, instead of bashing known hate figures which is easy and cheap.

AC: ‘Dan Hardie, you are one of several commenters on left wing blogs who are looking swivel eyed by denying the problems affecting the black community…Why are people like you trying to deny the problem?’

I don’t deny the problems of gang and gun crime in the black community and never have. What I do deny is that we will solve those problems by telling racist lies, as Rod Liddle did.

What Liddle said was: ‘The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.’

And I don’t call that anything other than a racist lie.

But don’t take my word for it. Try reading Liddle’s fellow Spectator blogger Alex Massie: ‘ The majority of crime in London is committed by white people. I assume that you know this, which makes me wonder wy you didn’t limit yourself to saying that young black men commit a disproportionate amount of crime and that the arrest rate for blacks is 3.8 times that of white people? Then again, we’re familiar with this and so perhaps limiting yourself to an observation that is, like, true wouldn’t be shocking enough would it? And nor, of course, would actually addressing problems.

‘But it’s your suggestion that blackness is somehow the cause of these problems that is shameful. Worse than even that, mind you, is your insinuation that if only we could send Black Britons back to Africa and the Caribbean we wouldn’t have any of these problems because, you know, it’s all the fault of “multi-culturalism”. If that were true one wonders why Glasgow’s murder rate is two and a half times that of London.’

But I’m sure Massie is just another liar denying the black community’s problems, etc. I mean, all he’s got on his side is the facts…

So Dan Hardie, you can educate me on this one, step by step. We’ll take the specific types of crime Liddle identifies and you can give me a link that proves your point for each. I don’t have any and have never claimed to. You have called Liddle a liar, so it’s fair to assume you do.

So in order:

Street Crime?
Knife Crime?
Gun Crime?
Robbery?
Crimes of sexual violence?

Overall crime stats for all types of crime are a mismatch against the specific types that Liddle identifies.

Genuinely hoping you can relieve my ignorance with some good links. You or anyone else.

How does that help? The words ‘knife’ and ‘gun’ do not appear anywhere in the document.

How does that help? The words ‘knife’ and ‘gun’ do not appear anywhere in the document.

The words ‘shooting’, ‘sharp’ and ‘instrument’ do, though.

Rodent

Agree Liddle’s was a scurrilous piece of work but what is the point of getting into a ya boo session.

I note from the crime statistics you cited that a black person is five times more likely to commit a crime resulting in a prison sentence than a white person.

Would we not do better to disuss why this is the case and debate how we can stop black people commiting, and being the victims of, so many crimes?

To start.

Is it possible that there is a cultural element glamourising the image of street crime to young blacks and that this contributes to the carrying of guns and knives?

I need to press those through Excel. Will return, if I can be bothered to do it.

I note from the crime statistics you cited that a black person is five times more likely to commit a crime resulting in a prison sentence than a white person.

The same doc also says black people are more likely to receive a custodial sentence for the same offence as whites.

Is it possible that there is a cultural element glamourising the image of street crime to young blacks and that this contributes to the carrying of guns and knives?

I don’t think anyone (at least no one we need to take seriously) is trying to deny there’s a particular problem with crime among blacks. But having that discussion in response to Liddle’s naked racism would be paying him a compliment he doersn’t deserve. This really is one of those cases where ‘Fuck off, you racist cunt,’ works just fine for me.

Will return, if I can be bothered to do it.

Don’t out yourself out.

A.C @ 56.

That’s not how these things work. Liddle made positive claims about how young black men are responsible for most of these types of crime. It’s for him or those who support him to provide the supporting evidence.

As it is, Unity kindly linked to me earlier in this post, but I have mentioned how young black men were not responsible for most knife crime in London for the three months to July 2008, using figures quoted by the Daily Mail at the time, from an FoI request (http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/2009/12/rod-liddle-more-racist-than-bnp.html).

If you have evidence to show that young black men do indeed commit most of all the crimes you list, please present it here. Otherwise you’re just asking us to disprove some idiot’s unsupported assertion, which isn’t how things should go.

Pagar

Is it possible that there is a cultural element glamourising the image of street crime to young blacks and that this contributes to the carrying of guns and knives?

Yes.

Will return, if I can be bothered to do it.

Don’t put yourself out.

Didn’t there used to be an edit facility around here?

Sy

I don’t think anyone (at least no one we need to take seriously) is trying to deny there’s a particular problem with crime among blacks.

That’s reassuring. Some commenters seem to be seriously trying to deny it though.

That’s reassuring. Some commenters seem to be seriously trying to deny it though.

Are they? Here? I thought I’d read this thread thoroughly, so can you point out where, please.

70. FlyingRodent

@AC: Listen mate, can you explain to the rest of us what social point is served by your ‘amusing’ little conceits?

I was unaware that my amusing conceits were required to serve a social point. Did I miss a memo from somebody’s central committee or something?

You’re obviously more of a writer than a politician.

I’m also more of a writer than I am a Ford Cortina or a bottle-nosed dolphin. Quite why this surprises you is a mystery to me.

@Pagar: Would we not do better to disuss why this is the case and debate how we can stop black people commiting, and being the victims of, so many crimes?

We probably would – feel free to start a blog yourself and give those criminals hell, tiger! I probably won’t join in, but I’ll be there in spirit.

Kate Belgrave re: Comment 41,
“Keep it coming, bro.’

Good grief woman!
If he’s a “bro” does that make you a “hoe”?

@71

Oh dear.

No doubt Kojak’s comment wasn’t racist, just ‘cultural’.

No I’m sorry Dan Hardie but that whole PDF does not offer any stats on method of killing by ethnicity of suspect.

The best you get is method by victim, which indicates that black victims are over-represented as victims of stabbing or shooting.

Sy re: Comment 73,

Correct. I was having an Imus moment.

Why should we divide crime statistics (or anything else for that matter) by quantity of melanin?

AC
some charts record ‘Ethnic appearance of principal suspect’.

Sy,

They only give ethnicity of victim and suspect, or relationship of suspect to victim.

Nothing giving ethnicity of suspect by method of killing. And nothing at all about non-fatal shootings or stabbings.

Oh, FFS. Go to Section 95, Table 5.4a, ‘Percentage breakdown of those arrested for notifiable offences, by ethnic appearance, offence group, and police force area, 2007/8′. The figures for the Met and City of London police, since Liddle’s slur was about blacks in London, are on page 85 of the PDF document (though when using the sidebar navigator, you want to go to page 99 of 227).

To recap, Liddle stated: ‘‘The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.’

According to the Metropolitan Police, 6.8% of those arrested for robbery were ‘Black’: no ‘overwhelming majority’. Liddle lies.

31.4% of those arrested for ‘sexual offences’ were ‘Black’: no ‘overwhelming majority. Liddle lies.

31.2% of those the Met Police arrested for ‘Violence against the person’, which includes gun and knife crime, were of ‘Black Ethnic Appearance’: no ‘overwhelming majority’. Liddle lies.

Are blacks over-represented in the sexual assault and violence against the person categories? As Alex Massie said when he denounced Liddle’s vile nonsense: ‘The majority of crime in London is committed by white people. I assume that you know this, which makes me wonder wy you didn’t limit yourself to saying that young black men commit a disproportionate amount of crime and that the arrest rate for blacks is 3.8 times that of white people?’

Why didn’t Liddle say it? Because he wanted to tell a lie about how the majority of violent and sexual crimes in London are committed by blacks. And because he wanted to assert that this was one of the ‘benefits of a Multi-cultural Britain’, as his post was titled. Which, as Massie pointed out, means ignoring that Glasgow with no large Afro-Carribbean population and a ‘white’ majority has a murder rate two and a half times that of London.

Thanks for the help, you can’t expect someone to find a table like that nearly 100 pages in without a pointer.

I agree with yours and Alex Massie’s point, stick to the fact of over-representation and work from there.

I would still like to see those same stats for 08/09, broken down into specific type of crime (shooting, stabbing, sexual assault etc.) and also split out by age range of suspect.

‘Thanks for the help, you can’t expect someone to find a table like that nearly 100 pages in without a pointer.’

Then how the hell did I find it in two minutes, you semi-literate cretin? Maybe because I read something called ‘Contents’ and guessed that if I wanted to find data on arrests I’d have to look at the chapter titled ‘Arrests’.

Oh man, A.C. do you really have to come here and pollute this blog with your racist garbage too?

Remember that Rod Liddle is very much of the left, not the right. All you’ve proved is than neither end of the political axis has a monopoly on reprehensible pricks.

He’s as to the left as Genghis Khan is to the left. Liddle Rod is of the right and you can keep him and his loonyness.

Yeah, you must just be cleverer and more literate than me I guess. Superior, even.

There’s that word again Sunny. ‘Racist’ has been shouted, everyone! It must be time to close the debate!

Much like “should we burn witches?”, some debates just aren’t worthy of the name.

PS Sunny your quote above is not from any of my comments

“Remember that Rod Liddle is very much of the left, not the right. All you’ve proved is than neither end of the political axis has a monopoly on reprehensible pricks.”

…is from Alex G. I’m A.C., get it right fool.

Why would we stop when you’re on such a roll?

So Sunny, admitting that Rod Liddle lied after I got a reliable set of stats is ‘racist garbage’ to you?

He’s as to the left as Genghis Khan is to the left. Liddle Rod is of the right and you can keep him and his loonyness.

The Mongolian assaults on Central Asia were clearly the work of an overpowerful executive pursuing a policy of economic redistribution in an atmosphere of permissive social mores.

I know that comment was from someone else – I was replying to them.

There’s that word again Sunny. ‘Racist’ has been shouted, everyone! It must be time to close the debate!

It isn’t racist to talk about certain issues, but it’s racist to make up bullshit so you can demonise certain racial groups. You’ve been caught out trying to defend Rod Liddle’s rubbish above – don’t try and take the high moral ground. It just looks even more embarrassing.

Where have I defended Rod Liddle?

I asked for stats then agreed he lied.

It must be time to close the debate!

This is, at a quick glance, about the fourth or fifth time that somebody has started blubbing about being silenced and/or debate being shut down I have seen under a post that explicitly states that right wingers should be heartily encouragedto speak their minds on climate change, racism or any one of their many bugbears.

I have repeatedly reiterated this point, as have a number of other commenters, throughout the thread. I’m starting to think that such complainers don’t actually mean that they are being “silenced”; rather, that they believe they have a special right to have their more idiotic pronouncements indulged that other people don’t get.

If that’s the case, they’re in for serious disappointment, because right wing cranks do not get extra-special speech rights that aren’t accorded to anybody else, no matter how they cry, wail and pound the floor. You get the same speech rights – no more, no less.

A.C.: Where have I defended Rod Liddle?

This is you earlier:
Please Sunny, please keep attacking him for that one brief blog piece.

Because the more you stir it up, the greater the number of people who will get to read his article for themselves, and the sooner the problems in the black community will receive proper attention.

So in other words you not only defended his blog piece without doing any research, but also said Liddle’s blog post would solve “problems” that you now realise were exaggerated and untrue. Oh dear. Exposed as a sham once again.

94. Dick the Prick

@93: ‘So in other words you not only defended his blog piece without doing any research, but also said Liddle’s blog post would solve “problems” that you now realise were exaggerated and untrue’….. err…but they are other words though. Hmm.

#92

Exactly; they think they have a right to say whatever they like without being called racist.

If I think something is racist, I’m going to say so. That doesn’t affect anyone’s freedom of speech. If they think I’m wrong, they can say why they think what they’ve said isn’t racist, and I’ll say why I think it is. The idea that stating an honest opinion that something is racist automatically ends a conversation and stops anyone from responding and arguing a different case is bizarre; I’ve never understood it except as a tactic.

How does that help? The words ‘knife’ and ‘gun’ do not appear anywhere in the document.

The words ’shooting’, ’sharp’ and ‘instrument’ do, though.

Now that little exchange made me laugh. A.C should be renamed E.F in this thread for Epic Fail.

Sorry A.C, I just couldn’t help myself. I know it’s unkind.

Certainly Rod Liddle deserves all the shit he’s been getting for being a sloppy hack, responding emotionally to a shocking crime by playing fast and loose with hyperbolic claims.

He could have made the point he was trying to just as powerfully by citing the official statistics rather than making up his own. As confirmed by the Section 95 report (which seems to have been belatedly discovered by liberal lefties even though it’s been an annual event since at least 1998) blacks are several times more prone to commiting violent crime than whites.

The key data is not given by the number of arrests since those figures, like those for stops and searches, are often decried by bleeding hearts as evidence of lingering institutional racism. Look instead at the figures in Tables 6.4 and 6.5 for actual convictions for serious crimes in the Crown Courts, for cases where the ethnic appearance of the perpetrator is known.

There we see that whites are actually 20% underrepresented when comparing the percentage of total convictions (76%) for whites with their representation in the overall population (91% per Table A). Blacks on the other hand, who form 3% (incl black-mixed) of the population are responsible of 13% of convictions for serious crime in the Crown Courts. The corresponding figures for London can also be derived from Table 6.3 and the latest ONS population estimates; on that basis whites form 69% of the population of London and commit 43% of the offences (38% under-represented) while blacks have 12% of the population and 37% of convictions (200% over-represented).

Table 6.4 facilitates a similar exercise by type of offence, but for England and Wales only. A detailed breakdown for London of offence by ethnicity is not provided. In none of the following are whites over-represented, the figures show that blacks are over-represented as follows:

- Violence against the person: 2x over-representation
- Sexual offences: 2.3x
- Burglary: 2.7x
- Robbery: 7.3x
- Theft and handling: 3.3x
- Fraud and forgery: 12.3x
- Criminal damage: 2x
- Drugs: 6.3x

And in case anyone should think I am picking on blacks unfairly, the over-representation rate for Asians is 1.4x and for the ‘Other’ category including Chinese is 3x. It should also be noted that the white category includes non-British whites who form 11% of the population of London and 4.5% in E & W.

Bleeding heart liberals who will be quick to blame ‘society’ and white racism for these shocking levels of ethnic criminality might wish to take a break from the hand-wringing and reflect on why it makes sense to be importing a criminal underclass from the third when there is already a sizeable indigenous one already in place.

98. Alex Higgins

A.C.’s fail is great and he still doesn’t get it, but he is the first right-wing troll I have ever, ever, ever seen accept correction on a point of fact after being shown the relevant statistics.

There is hope! Trolls can be saved! The great quest to correct wrongness on the Internet is not entirely futile after all!

Next up, Dan Dare…

99. FlyingRodent

He could have made the point he was trying to just as powerfully by citing the official statistics rather than making up his own.

Well again, no he couldn’t. His point was that a) African-Carribean men commit the majority of crimes in the UK; that b) hence, the net contribution of African-Carribean people is goat curry, rapes and murders and that c) this is all because of multiculturalism.

Of course, a) has long since fallen on its arse, b) is laughable on its face and c) is ridiculous, as a look at Scotland shows. All of his points are bluntly wrong and were made with the intention of acting the dick – ergo, Rod Liddle is an ignorant bullshitter, and even if you extend maximum charity to him, he was suggesting that black people are naturally inclined to criminality. This is some really indefensible stuff here.

And there should be no need to repeat this, since it’s been pointed out again and again, but rates of offending are clearly related to economic and educational factors, and not racial ones. Black university graduates offend at similar rates to white university graduates, i.e. barely at all; meanwhile, black kids from rough areas who leave school with no qualifications offend at similar rates to white kids in similar circumstances, i.e. quite a lot. If you’re looking for cultural factors, then start with low income.

But then, don’t let me stop you if you have some controversial theories about why poor black kids are more likely to commit crimes. Don’t leave out the gory details, now.

100. FlyingRodent

His point was that a) African-Carribean men commit the majority of crimes in the UK

Scratch that – he said “London,” not the UK. Still wrong, though.

Rodent

I am not going to defend Liddle’s populist style, but pointing out that the fact that blacks in London commit 58% of robberies and make up 2.2% of the UK population does not necessarily suggest that “black people are naturally inclined to criminality” in some kind of pre-ordained genetical blueprint. And it is not racist.

But the disparity between those stats and those of the other UK ethnic groups can not entirely be explained by “economic and educational factors”.

Something else is going on and to deny that defies logic.

102. FlyingRodent

Pardon me Pagar, but I’m struggling to decide which is the more hilarious here – “Liddle’s populist style” or “does not necessarily suggest that “black people are naturally inclined to criminality”. “It isn’t racist” is just a tad too predictable, since it’s the Mother-in-law joke of comedy dog whistle rhetoric. .

In fact, I tell a lie. “Something else is going on” is my favourite part. Please, enlighten me – what exactly do you think that might be?

@101, “blacks in London commit 58% of robberies and make up 2.2% of the UK population” – I hope even you can recognise on re-reading how UTTERLY FUCKING STUPID that combination of statistics is (c.f. “people in Stourbridge commit 100% of robberies, but only make up 0.01% of the UK population).

More relevantly: why don’t you *adjust the statistics by economic and educational factors*, rather than just stating that For Reasons Unknown there is no way they could account for the difference?

To repeat.

blacks in London commit 58% of robberies and make up 2.2% of the UK population

What I would like is an explanation of that statistic.

Assuming neither of us are racists and it can not, therefore, be explained by way of genetic predisposition to robbery by people with a black skin and it can not be explained by “economic and educational factors” which are no different to those of other ethnic groups, what is the explanation?

The only rational explanation i can think of has to do with cultural influences.

What is your explanation?

OK John, I accept your point.

To be consistent.

Blacks make up 11% of the population of London and commit 58% of the robberies.

Asians make up 12% of the population and commit 10% of the robberies.

What are the reasons for the above? And don’t say it’s because I’m a racist.

@98

“:…The great quest to correct wrongness on the Internet is not entirely futile after all!

Next up, Dan Dare…”

Good luck with that one.

@ 99 FlyingRodent

“His point was that a) African-Carribean men commit the majority of crimes in the UK; that b) hence, the net contribution of African-Carribean people is goat curry, rapes and murders and that c) this is all because of multiculturalism.

Of course, a) has long since fallen on its arse, b) is laughable on its face and c) is ridiculous, as a look at Scotland shows. All of his points are bluntly wrong and were made with the intention of acting the dick – ergo, Rod Liddle is an ignorant bullshitter, and even if you extend maximum charity to him, he was suggesting that black people are naturally inclined to criminality. This is some really indefensible stuff here.”

It seems to have escaped notice that I wasn’t defending Liddle, unless in the looking-glass world you fellows inhabit calling someone a sloppy hack emotionally making hyperbolic pronouncements counts as leaping to someome’s aid.

Point b): I don’t have my I-Spy Big Book of Immigration Benefits to hand so perhaps you might be good enough to enumerate such contributions gain since I seem to have forgotten. But let’s take ethnic grub, exciting new dance syncopations and colourful new dress styles as read, shall we?

Point c): As noted above, I made the point above that we already have a sizeable indigenous underclass and was asking for opinions on the utility of continuing to import a another one from the third world.

“And there should be no need to repeat this, since it’s been pointed out again and again, but rates of offending are clearly related to economic and educational factors, and not racial ones.

But then, don’t let me stop you if you have some controversial theories about why poor black kids are more likely to commit crimes. Don’t leave out the gory details, now.”

I don’t have any uniquely original theories, I’m just asking what they’re doing here. See points passim.

But Dan, as on previous threads, it seems you are quite good at providing evidence that immigration provides no net economic benefits or costs, but not at providing evidence that it is economically damaging. In fact if you account for the increase in well being the migrant accrues it becomes nigh impossible to say it is not one of the great goods of the modern world.

Likewise, you are quite good at providing evidence showing correlation between membership of an ethnic community and crime, but again you fail to prove the clincher; any causal link because it is very hard (and I haven’t been able to find the data/study statistics) to control for class, education and other confounding factors.

I’m also sure you are aware (so, I’m a little surprised you’d bring it up) that migrants tend to be come from more middle segments of the send countries, so I don’t know why you would suggest we are importing an “underclass.” Refugees, and most of those, who afford to migrate tend to be relatively well off in the countries they left too.

@107: “I’m just asking what they’re doing here.”

You mean “what are black kids, (who were born here, and who’s parents were likely born here) doing here.” My family emigrated here a few generations back, but then they had the good sense to come from Russia rather than the Caribbean. Strangely, the Daily Mail aren’t attacking Anglo-Russian immigration.

@ pagar

you’re a racist ;)

In all honesty I’d have too look at data which I don’t have. It is certainly anomalous and an interesting thing to look into, my obvious suggestion is class and alienation. But there is also likely to be something cultural in this (of course I’d want to relate this back to class as well).

For example the Rasterfari penchant for marijuana will lead otherwise law abiding people into contact with drug dealers, criminal people who are generally good at their job because they employ violence and run a healthy sideline in harder drugs. So marijuana’s illegality leads certain people to contact with violent people and harder drugs, both of which beget violence. (again this is all speculation on a complex social issue, when really we want data and testable hypotheses). This cultural trait need not be criminal, yet we have forced it to be criminal in itself, and hence more likely to lead to other criminal acts.

But this is another reason you should set up a blog, because on a thread discussing Rod Liddle’s racist ranting (I don’t think he’s a racist, but I do think what he said was racist, “It racist to lie about immigration” etc.) it looks like you’re moving the goalposts for him and he doesn’t deserve it.

@ Left Outside (108)

“But Dan, as on previous threads, it seems you are quite good at providing evidence that immigration provides no net economic benefits or costs, but not at providing evidence that it is economically damaging. In fact if you account for the increase in well being the migrant accrues it becomes nigh impossible to say it is not one of the great goods of the modern world.”

Perhaps you missed my later post on the immigration thread about the infrastructure cost of accommodating migrants but that aside, even if the economic outcome is beign when all inputs and outputs are tallied, we still have the political, socio-cultural, environmental and well, let’s be blunt, also the ethnographic effects that need to be properly accounted for.

As for the benefits for migrants, I think it is generally accepted that migrants themselves are the single biggest beneficiaries, followed by their compatriots remaining at home who receive remittances. But as I claimed in my Majority Rights article, that is really part of the Humanitarian Argument, not the Economic one.

“Likewise, you are quite good at providing evidence showing correlation between membership of an ethnic community and crime, but again you fail to prove the clincher; any causal link because it is very hard (and I haven’t been able to find the data/study statistics) to control for class, education and other confounding factors.”

The causal link that is most usually cited as far as I have noticed is that socio-economic disadvantage amongst ethnic minorities is a result of racial discrimination. That has been the justification for the entire suite of race relations legislation since the 1965 Race Relations Act up to and including the soon to be enacted Equality Act of 2010. I have another longish piece on MR on this topic.

“I’m also sure you are aware (so, I’m a little surprised you’d bring it up) that migrants tend to be come from more middle segments of the send countries, so I don’t know why you would suggest we are importing an “underclass.” Refugees, and most of those, who afford to migrate tend to be relatively well off in the countries they left too.”

In a sense you’re really helping to make my point in questioning the rationale for creating a new ethnic underclass which merely exacerbates the problem of dealing with the existing indigenous one. I don’t believe that you really mean to equate in any meaningful sense what constitutes a middle class in sending countries with that in the receiving countries. I’m sure you’re aware that the overwhelming majority of migrants who are accepted for permanent settlement in the UK originate in countries which in the bottom quartile in terms of HDI and GDP/capita.

More fun with numbers ….

The S.95 report that we’re currently thrilling to has the basic function of monitoring the experiences of ethnic minorities in their contacts with the criminal justice system; it has been published more-or-less annually since 1992. The underlying rationale for the exercise is that racial minorities have historically been hard done by owing to pervasive institutional racism within the system, as well being systematically victimised by certain segments of the host society.

The report seems to be fulfilling its function as far as the first is concerned, outbursts of liberal outrage in house organs such as the Guardian about continuing ‘racial profiling’, which leads to disproportionate numbers of ethnics being subjected to stop and search, are as regular as the first cuckoo of spring. On the second part of the rationale – the victimisation – it has to besaid that the report leaves something to be desired, from the liberal viewpoint.

Take homicides, for example. These are presented in Table 3.5, which tabulates the ethnic appearance of victims and suspects for the three-year period 2006-08. From the table we can see that over the period there were 1418 homicides in which the ethnicity of both the victim and suspect were identified. A quick summation of the perpetrators indicates that 78% were white, 11% black, 8% Asian and 3% other including Chinese. As a reminder, the report uses the following percentages for ethnic composition of the population of England and Wales: white 91%, black 3%, Asian 5% and other 3%. So again we see that whites are under-represented as perpetrators of homicides and all the other groups are over-represented.

But where it really gets interesting is when we analyse the figures for inter-racial murders, which is a rational thing to want to do given the underlying function of the report. We then find that were 228 inter-racial murders, for which 30% of the suspects were white, 40% black, 21% Asian and 9% other. We could go further and figure out white-on-black, black-on white etc but the result would be predictably obvious.

But the final question surely has to be: does Table 3.5 support the conclusion that ethnic minorities are being victimised by the host population? The answer has to be no. Of the 228 inter-racial murders 68 of the suspects (30%) were white; turning that around, there were 126 white victims, accounting for 55% of the total of all inter-racial homicides. 74 whites were murdered by blacks, 34 by Asians and 18 by ‘other’.

It’s a little surprising that the government continues to publish Table 3.5 since it does not support the intended messaging for anyone prepared to do a little digging. On the other hand, it’s noticeable that the government does not provide any data on the ethnicity of victims and perpetrators of racially and religiously aggravated offences which take up the rest of Section 3. I suppose we are meant to take it as read that solely ethnics are the victims and whites are the only perpetrators.

113. FlyingRodent

@Dan: I don’t have my I-Spy Big Book of Immigration Benefits to hand so perhaps you might be good enough to enumerate such contributions gain since I seem to have forgotten.

You mean beyond the UK’s vast numbers of black doctors, policemen, scientists, teachers, nurses, businessmen, reporters, bankers etc. who work and pay taxes? Well, if that somehow counts for nothing with you, I suppose they also make a handy canary in the coalmine for hauling various racial obsessives and cranks blinking into the light, mumbling But what have the blacks ever done for us?

And it is rather funny how these polite, productive discussions on race of the type that we’re always being urged to have swing so quickly to the horrible criminality of the ethnics, and dark hints about how much better off we’d all be without them. I continue to be unsurprised by the ease with which certain commenters appear to be able to blow off the entirely obvious fact that crime is a poorest people in society phenomenon rather than a racial one, something that is absolutely undeniable if you were to come up to Edinburgh and sit yourself down in a court.

That argument has been repeatedly made and little engaged with here, and the logical conclusion we can draw from that is that commenters like yourself couldn’t really give a shit about criminal behaviour or the environment it flourishes in, beyond its utility as a stick to beat non-whites. That doesn’t imply lots of good faith on the anti-side of this argument, and I advise other commenters to treat this as they would anyone else arguing in such a manner.

Fascinating as this is though, it’s little different from the bullshit my mother’s side of the family got from the racist chumps of their day, who were convinced that the Irish were a criminal class, skilled only in thievery and treacherous Popery, in that order. My family are still living under the assumed name they adopted in the late nineteenth century, because nobody named O’Hanlon was going to pick up any kind of decent job, thanks to exactly the kind of honest punter who wanted to know what they were doing here. Trying to get by and raise a family while avoiding a load of ignorant, rabble-rousing bigots was the answer, in their case.

Which I use to bring us to the question about us importing an immigrant criminal underclass – what proportion of UK net immigration are criminals? I suspect it doesn’t matter at all whether it’s 0.01% or 90% – your response to both figures is likely to be the same, and you don’t have to be Derren Brown to work out what solutions you’d propose. There’s no possible way to allow any immigration at all without some proportion of criminals arriving in the UK, hence… Well, you know the rest.

Because there’s really no way to deal with wild generalisations about immigration, beyond imitating it and pretending the opposite – that all immigrants are law-abiding and productive. I’d bet folding money that my useless, sweeping statement is far closer to the truth than yours, but somehow I doubt that the intellectual charity you expect for your own bad arguments cuts both ways.

<i.For example the Rasterfari penchant for marijuana will lead otherwise law abiding people into contact with drug dealers

Good grief, man, it’s Rastafari, and it’s been a while since that rather batty religion held sway over significant numbers of black youth.

If we’re taking stabs at the reasons for disparity in crime levels, I think as well as class and education, you’d have to throw male parental influence (or absence of) into the pot too.

On the particular issue of robbery, people have traditionally felt physically intimidated by black males in a way they aren’t by Asians. They may commit more of them because they’re better at it.

Oh, what went wrong there? First para should’ve been in italics and was a quote from Left Outside.

Tag test

do point brackets work?

[i]do spare brackets work?[/i]

Pointy bracketsit seems.

Does anyone know what actual tags are enabled on this blog, or is it a secret shared only amongst the cognoscenti?

@ FlyingRodent:

You mean beyond the UK’s vast numbers of black doctors, policemen, scientists, teachers, nurses, businessmen, reporters, bankers etc. who work and pay taxes?

Yes. But I was rather looking for exceptional contributions to national life, you know things that we would all miss if the persons concerned were to be magically translevitated back to their ancestral homelands. I suspect there’d still be a fair few doctors, policemen et al for us all to be making do with, as indeed there were in the time before the Deluge. If not, we could always train up a few. Our European neighbours don’t seem to have any great difficulty in the

However, if we’re about to be discussing the vast numbers of third-world migrants who are in productive employment, we need to also be discussing the vast numbers who aren’t. According to the last Labour Market stats from the ONS, 73% of UK-born of working age are in employment, compared to 64% of African immigrants, 68% of Indian and 49% of Pakistan and Bangladesh. What sort of contribution are they making?

But what have the blacks ever done for us?

You react as if that were not a question we are not entitled to ask.

And it is rather funny how these polite, productive discussions on race of the type that we’re always being urged to have swing so quickly to the horrible criminality of the ethnics, and dark hints about how much better off we’d all be without them.

If you affect to wish a debate it is bad form to criticise your adversary for introducing topics that you find awkward to deal with.

I continue to be unsurprised by the ease with which certain commenters appear to be able to blow off the entirely obvious fact that crime is a poorest people in society phenomenon rather than a racial one, something that is absolutely undeniable if you were to come up to Edinburgh and sit yourself down in a court.

I for one am not ignoring the self-evident fact that much crime is a consequence of the low SES of the perps, and that there is a significant indigenous underclass which exhibits a high degree of criminality. My difficulty is in understanding why we should persist in exacerbating that problem through the introduction of more and more people from the third world with even lower SES than our home-grown problem.

… commenters like yourself couldn’t really give a shit about criminal behaviour or the environment it flourishes in, beyond its utility as a stick to beat non-whites. That doesn’t imply lots of good faith on the anti-side of this argument, and I advise other commenters to treat this as they would anyone else arguing in such a manner.

Most commenters here seem curiously uninterested in engagement. I suspect more than a few are ‘no platformers’ and I commend you for not taking that easy line.

Which I use to bring us to the question about us importing an immigrant criminal underclass – what proportion of UK net immigration are criminals?

The answer is easily derived from the official statistics. However the absolute level is not as relevant as the relative one. There can’t be any argument that the overall level of ethnic criminality is greatly in excess of the indigenous, in the case of certain groups by almost an order of magnitude.

But contrary to your imputation, I am not that preoccupied with migrant criminality and am more concerned with answering the cosmic question: Immigration. What’s it for? And as a supplementary: What’s in it for me?

Removed the double negative …

But what have the blacks ever done for us?

You react as if that were a question we are not entitled to ask.

120. FlyingRodent

If you affect to wish a debate it is bad form to criticise your adversary for introducing topics that you find awkward to deal with.

I see your problem here – I haven’t given any indication that I want a debate. I’ve encouraged right wing pundits and commenters with racist, conspiracist and generally cranky views to seek high-profile platforms from which to express themselves, for public consumption. If you want to know why I’d say that, I suggest you trot these topics out for a few total strangers and see how they react.

But what have the blacks ever done for us? You react as if that were not a question we are not entitled to ask.

Largely because I don’t expect anyone who isn’t specifically a public servant to do me favours, or indeed to generally work towards goals that are directly to my benefit. Frankly, the expectation that people should do so strikes me as bordering on egomania. Dividing people up into distinct ethnic groups and demanding to know what good they do for you personally crosses a further line and looks like egomania with overt racist overtones.

On immigrants and criminality – any system that allows immigration is going to be so complex that it will inevitably admit people who will turn into or already be criminals. There is simply no way to avoid this, and if you think that this means we should stop all immigration, or that people of certain ethnicities should be refused entry, then say so.

And on criminality and race – I believe that you’ll find strong correlation between minorities and poverty in roughly the same proportion to minorities and criminality. This means we are talking about a people issue, and not a race issue. If you disagree and think that there’s an inherent cultural or genetic element to criminal behaviour, then say that too. There’s no need to keep your beliefs at arm’s length with a lot of loaded questions.

I see your problem here – I haven’t given any indication that I want a debate. I’ve encouraged right wing pundits and commenters with racist, conspiracist and generally cranky views to seek high-profile platforms from which to express themselves, for public consumption.

Yes, I have gathered from earlier comments in this thread that that is your ‘strategy’. Give the beggars enough rope and they’ll hang themselves, right?. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to panning out though does it? They keep returning with further awkward questions that can’t be dealt with without resort to piling on the invective and if that fails, censoring or banning ‘em.

If you want to know why I’d say that, I suggest you trot these topics out for a few total strangers and see how they react.

My observation would be that the general public is acutely interested in such topics once they are broached and become furious when they come to realise how the wool has been pulled over their eyes by the managerial elites and their familiars. Even total strangers are usually aghast when the arguments for mass immigration from the third world put about by the charlatans in the Immigration Industry are exposed for the lies that they are. Once awakened, there is no going back.

I’ve issued previous invitations for regulars here and other ‘liberal’ bloggers to visit chez nous and tell us where we’re going wrong, but unsurprisingly none so far have chosen to venture beyond the cocoon of their comfy echo chambers. It would be interesting to see what you’re made of besides empty slogans.

The Immigration Industry tacks into the wind

But what have the blacks ever done for us? You react as if that were not a question we are not entitled to ask.

Largely because I don’t expect anyone who isn’t specifically a public servant to do me favours, or indeed to generally work towards goals that are directly to my benefit.

The question as originally posed was not asking what they’d done for you (or I) but what they’ve done for us, collectively. I’m assuming you’re British and not a recent migrant or descendant of same yourself, and might therefore have at least an glimmer of interest in the answer.

It’s really a part of the bigger question, which you and your ilk continue to dodge: Immigration, what is it for?

@121: I’m assuming you’re British and not a recent migrant or descendant of same yourself

How are you defining ‘recent’?

On a more personal level, when did your ancestors get here?

@122

a) post-1948

b) paternal side 2100 bc approx, maternal side sometime during the upper paleolithic

So someone who arrived in 1947 is British, but 1949 isn’t? How flexible are you with those dates? Why 1948? The phrase “entirely arbitrary” springs to mind.

Also, I can’t say I’ve spent much time with genealogy, but I was under the impression it was rather difficult to be sure of one’s lineage (other than for certain famous lines) earlier than around 1700 (due to a distinct lack of birth/death certificates, or really any written evidence of most persons existing). Could I see some evidence for “2100BC” and “upper Paleolithic”?

Dan Dare But what have the blacks ever done for us? You react as if that were a question we are not entitled to ask.

Of course you’re entitled to ask it (in the sense of having the right, as indeed you’ve demonstrated here). But by asking it, you are suggesting that “people with black skin” form a coherent group with a level of homogeneity sufficient to make the question sensible in the first place. Except there’s no real evidence for that.

I was mugged by a young black man when I lived in Hackney. The doctor who diagnosed my father’s cancer early enough to be successfully treated was black. If I was to view “people with black skin” as being a single group about which it is sensible to ask “what have they done for us?” then my answer would be “nicked my phone and saved my dad’s life… so on balance, quite a lot actually”.

But I don’t view race in that manner, because it makes no sense. Skin colour can indeed be the basis for group formation and tribal behaviour, but so can socio-economic position, football team or political affiliation. It makes just as much sense to demand to know what Aston Villa supporters have ever done for you. You’re entitled to ask the question, but don’t be surprised when you get strange looks for doing so.

I mean, exactly what should we infer about you personally based upon the behaviour of Josef Fritzl? What with you both being white…

As someone who spends their time studying group formation and behaviour from a psychodynamic perspective, it’s worth pointing out that serious academics no longer consider race to be a unique factor in group coherence (though as I say, under specific circumstances it can be one of many). That view is generally associated with Gustave Le Bon’s 1895 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, and was comprehensively demolished by Freud in the 1920s.

I’m also curious to know how you can possibly trace your family tree back 20,000 years. Prehistory is sort of defined by the lack of records. Have you had some kind of DNA test done? Or are you just making stuff up?

What is great about this post is that it is so level headed and decent.

@125. Jim Bliss

… It makes just as much sense to demand to know what Aston Villa supporters have ever done for you.

I suppose it might except that, last time I checked, they don’t compile the immigration stats by footie club affiliation. Wouldn’t betting though that a goodly number are bloody Man Yoo supporters.

That view was comprehensively demolished by Freud in the 1920s.

In my book describing something as being comprehensively demolished by Freud (I presume you refer to Sigmund , not Clement) is praise of the highest order. The only higher accolade might be that Franz Boas had been implacably opposed as well.

I’m also curious to know how you can possibly trace your family tree back 20,000 years. Prehistory is sort of defined by the lack of records. Have you had some kind of DNA test done? Or are you just making stuff up?

Now now Jimbo, even the products of what is still laughably called the British educational system will be aware, even if you aren’t, that what is now Britain was only re-colonised around 11 kya. Let’s not be letting the side down with daft remarks eh?

And yes, I’m willing to show you my markers if you’ll show me yours.

@124

Well yes, I suppose 1948 is somewhat arbitrary, but it is a date widely celebrated by devotees of the MultiKulti and much revered by them and fellow travellers as heralding the birth of modern, multiracial Britain. I could do 1947 instead though if that suits you better.

As for evidence, will you be requiring all 67 DYS markers or will just the 12 do?

129. FlyingRodent

I’ll put up a more substantive response later, but for now…

Jim Bliss: when did your ancestors get here?

Dan Dare: paternal side 2100 bc approx, maternal side sometime during the upper paleolithic.

That must’ve been quite a genealogy project, if you can accurately trace your family tree back thousands of years before the beginning of recorded history. Presumably those family research sites have improved beyond measure since my Dad researched his family tree and hit a brick wall in 1740.

Further, it’s amazing to meet a modern British citizen whose ancestry is completely untouched by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans or any other of the millions of invaders who have conquered or colonised Britain in the last two millenia. Even if we were talking about some kind of science fiction breeding programme, monitored down the ages by a secret cult of benevolent illuminati, the chances of your family history being dominated – or even heavily influenced – by a four-thousand year old blood line are on the miraculous side of “Absolutely 100% fucking impossible”.

I propose to you that, if your assertion is true, then your parents arrived in Britain via time machine. Or – and I throw this out there purely for discussion – you are living in a hilarious fantasyland of ethnic purity and are made of the same mongrel stock as the rest of us. I would’ve thought that claiming a thousand years of British heritage would be enough for the most belligerent white nationalist, but you can get a DNA test if you want to find out for sure.

130. FlyingRodent

Sorry, Kentron asked that, not Jim. Still a hoot, though.

You sure built up a head of steam for that diatribe. Curious you didn’t even mention Ogundele and Jolie’s attempted murder of their statutory rape victim. TNB.

132. FlyingRodent

I have gathered from earlier comments in this thread that that is your ‘strategy’. Give the beggars enough rope and they’ll hang themselves, right?.

Insofar as “let everyone say exactly what they think and let them be judged accordingly by their audience” is a strategy, then yes. This has an excellent democratic pedigree in ensuring that extremists stay marginalised, which is much to the good of everyone who isn’t a nutter themselves.

I’ve issued previous invitations for regulars here and other ‘liberal’ bloggers to visit chez nous and tell us where we’re going wrong, but unsurprisingly none so far have chosen to venture beyond the cocoon of their comfy echo chambers.

Well, most of these people have blogs too and if they’re anything like me, they’ll have spent far too many hours bashing their heads against single-issue obsessives and conspiracist dogma. While your invitation is very kind, I suspect it would prove about as productive as shouting into a bucket.

Let’s use the immigration industry as exhibit 47(b) here. I tend to find that the application of the word “industry” to controversial issues tends to be an eighteen-foot tall neon sign, flashing the word “mental” on and off while pointing at whoever coined the phrase. I base this on the extensive material I’ve read about the “abortion industry,” the “human rights industry,” the “race-relations industry” and the “global warming industry,” to name but a few.

This is just my perception and I wouldn’t establish it as a hard and fast rule, but I’m inclined to receive fresh complaints about new “industries” as I would the “Dropping Toast Butter-Side Down Industry” or the “Accidentally Standing On An Upturned Plug Industry”, i.e. not industries and actually “conspiracies”, and really just code for something the writer doesn’t like and wishes to make others suspicious of.

the general public is acutely interested in such topics once they are broached and become furious when they come to realise how the wool has been pulled over their eyes by the managerial elites and their familiars… Once awakened, there is no going back.

Indeed. If only the Sheeple would wake up and watch these Youtube videos -in which you can clearly see a hovering Socialist fighter jet firing murderous Somalis into the burning World Trade Centre, causing it to collapse – they would all agree intensely with your opinions.

I’ll take that bet, sir – I believe that while people may hold all manner of beliefs on immigration, multiculturalism and race, they are not literally about to embrace white nationalism and jump on a platform of pretending to be paleolithic Aryan warriors and sending them all back to wherever. In fact, I’m quite certain that Britain’s various fucknut racist parties will be right where they are now or worse in ten years’ time, and that their most passionate members will still be shouting to an indifferent nation about false consciousness* and the need for revolution in thirty years.

*Or call it people being “fooled by political correctness” if you prefer – cut it however you like, and it’s still standard Commie rhetoric, and look how well they’ve fared in the UK in the past century or so.

133. FlyingRodent

TimB: Curious you didn’t even mention Ogundele and Jolie’s attempted murder of their statutory rape victim.

Not really – had the topic been “Is violence wrong?” then it would’ve been very curious indeed. In a post about dishonest right wing ballbags trying to rehabilitate racism and pimp conspiracies about scientific issues, it’s only necessary to note the bullshit and the deceit.

Arthur: What is great about this post is that it is so level headed and decent.

If it upsets you so, I’d suggest clutching your handbag a little tighter and saying “Tut, tut”. That always seems to make my Gran feel better.

@127 Dan Dare

I suppose it might except that, last time I checked, they don’t compile the immigration stats by footie club affiliation. Wouldn’t betting though that a goodly number are bloody Man Yoo supporters.

Just because someone compiles a set of statistics based upon skin colour still doesn’t mean it’s sensible to group people of the same colour together for the purposes of asking “what have they done for us”. There’s no “they” there. It’s not a coherent basis upon which to judge collective value. That you have chosen to do so is basically racism.

Which isn’t an attempt to shut down discussion or to condemn you as a person. “Racism is the water through which we swim” as a wise man once said. To a greater or lesser degree it’s part of most of us. The point is though, that it’s an irrational part. Therefore we are obliged to overcome it — to swim against the current so to speak — if we wish to speak or act rationally or sensibly.

There are indeed those who seek to shut down debate by screaming “racist”. I’m not one of them though. My goal has always been to reach a point of understanding. Mutual understanding if at all possible. So when I hear racist views I’m more interested in pointing out the inherent irrationality of those views, in the hope that the person who holds them will try to justify them rationally (to themself, not me, I couldn’t give a toss what your personal justifications might be). Once it sinks in that there is no evidence that ascribing specific beliefs or behaviour to groups based upon skin tone has a rational basis (see my mugger / doctor analogy, above, for instance) then — if the racist is also someone who seeks understanding above point-scoring (more optimism than expectation, I admit) — an attempt might be made to arrive at a more evidence-based belief system.

In my book describing something as being comprehensively demolished by Freud (…) is praise of the highest order. The only higher accolade might be that Franz Boas had been implacably opposed as well.

As it happens, I used to hold very similar views about Freud. Though in my case, I initially rejected him from a left-feminist perspective, which — something tells me — isn’t your position.

Then, however, I actually spent a few years studying psychoanalytic theory and discovered to my shock that Freud’s work has been systematically misrepresented for the best part of a century (almost as much by his own followers as by his detractors, bizarrely). I wonder therefore whether you have actually studied Freud, or are basing your position on hearsay and prejudice?

I ask the question not because I think you’re being deliberately intellectually dishonest (genuinely) but because on the subject of Freud, half the world are basing their position on the spurious analysis of post-Freudians and the other half (me among them for a long time) on the spurious analysis of his detractors; while few have actually read the source material.

Now now Jimbo, even the products of what is still laughably called the British educational system will be aware, even if you aren’t, that what is now Britain was only re-colonised around 11 kya. Let’s not be letting the side down with daft remarks eh?

Well, you said “Upper Paleolithic” which marks out a period between 10 and 40 thousand years ago. I took a random date within that period. Thing is, I’m not a product of the British education system (except for my first degree — which wasn’t in paleontology), so the prehistoric ins-and-outs of one particular European island never really came up at school.

And yes, I’m willing to show you my markers if you’ll show me yours.

Fair enough. I have no reason to doubt your veracity. If you claim you have DNA evidence that your ancestors arrived in Britain 11 thousand and 2,100 years ago and never inter-bred with anyone who arrived later than that then so be it. You are aware, however, that such a lineage puts you in a tiny minority, though, right? And to base residence rights on such a lineage is utterly impractical.

@123:

paternal side 2100 bc approx, maternal side sometime during the upper paleolithic

I presume you’re referring to a combination of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA analysis there… There’s just one slight problem – Y-chromosome only gives you information about the direct male line (father, father’s father, father’s father’s father, etc) and mtDNa only gives you information about the direct female line (mother, mother’s mother, mother’s mother’s mother, etc). Neither can tell you anything at all about the vast majority of your antecedents who are not on either line (father’s mother, mother’s father, and so on). In any given generation N, you have 2^N ancestors, and these techniques can only tell you about exactly 2 of them. Unless, of course, your family has been sustained entirely by the marriage of bothers and sisters for the duration in question…

Dunc just won the Internets.

@123

Dear Dunc:

Given that that close to 90% of males in the British Isles share one of three of haplogroups (I1, R1b or R1a), the last of which entered the Isles more than 1,000 years ago and more than three-quarters of females are members of one of three HGs that all date back to the UP, it’s a fair bet that anyone whose deep paternal and maternal ancestry demonstrates such a lineage has an ancestry which consists of these HGs. Especially someone whose gggparents were also born in the Isles.

What is also true is that anyone whose deep paternal and maternal ancestry does not indicate one of the stated HGs is not indigenous.

So you see, there is no problem slight or otherwise.

(129) FlyingRodent

That must’ve been quite a genealogy project, if you can accurately trace your family tree back thousands of years before the beginning of recorded history.

I didn’t say family tree, that’s something you’ve decided to assume off your own bat in obvious ignorance of how DNA tests work. Glance back to #122 and re-read what I actually wrote.

Further, it’s amazing to meet a modern British citizen whose ancestry is completely untouched by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans or any other of the millions of invaders who have conquered or colonised Britain in the last two millenia.

It would be amazing, I agree. It would also be rather hard to distinguish anyone who did have Norman or Anglo-Saxon ancestry since since they are genetically indistinguishable from the rest of the population who share the same HG. Although as more and more subclades are discovered it is getting easier to perform geographic clustering. The mutation that distinguishes my own paternal line, for example, appears to have originated in the Rhineland around 4,500 kya. Romans are another matter and their presence probably accounts for some of the small amount of J2 and E1b1b present in the British population, although the Romans themselves were of course as Indo-European as the rest of us.

I propose to you that, if your assertion is true, then your parents arrived in Britain via time machine. Or – and I throw this out there purely for discussion – you are living in a hilarious fantasyland of ethnic purity and are made of the same mongrel stock as the rest of us.

‘Mongrel stock’ is a simply a pejorative deployed by immigration enthusiasts in support of their false pronouncements that we are a ‘nation of immigrants’. Well, the scientific consenses is clear that we are not, at least we didn’t used to be. The genetic profile of the population of the British Isles remained essentially unchanged for a thousand years until large-scale non-European migration started little more than two generations ago. Britain is becoming mongrelised it’s true, but that is a very recent innovation.

@132 FlyingRodent

Insofar as “let everyone say exactly what they think and let them be judged accordingly by their audience” is a strategy, then yes. This has an excellent democratic pedigree in ensuring that extremists stay marginalised, which is much to the good of everyone who isn’t a nutter themselves.

Fair enough, it is a two-way street you know.

While your invitation is very kind, I suspect it would prove about as productive as shouting into a bucket.

Well you’ll never know until you tried it will you? Doesn’t the prospect of evangelising to a whole new flock of potential converts, perhaps even saving some souls in the process, have any appeal? If you don’t at least make a token effort at outreach your audience may start to develop thoughts that your faith may not as robust as you’d have them believe.

And in denying the existence of an immigration industry, how else then would you collectively characterise the following organisations, each of which is wholly or partly dependent on public funds to continue in existence: the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (membership 1000 plus), the Immigration Advisory Service, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Refugee Action, the Refugee Council, to name just a few? Add to this the myriad governmental departments and quangos that facilitate, one way or another, the migrant stream and you looking at a very sizeable operation indeed.

If it’s evidence of a human rights industry you seek, look no further than the Human Rights Lawyers Association with its current membership of over 1600. Diversity and equality? Well, we can start off with the EHRC and its £70 million budget, and add to that the literally countless diversity specialists that have been added to the public payrolls since the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act of 2000. As a result of a FoI request I was able able to determine that a middle-sized borough council in the Northwest (population around 200,000) has a full time staff of twenty in its ‘Ethnic Diversity Staff’, and a further six staff managing the council’s use of outside interpreters.

Industry doesn’t even come close.

Indeed. If only the Sheeple would wake up and watch these Youtube videos -in which you can clearly see a hovering Socialist fighter jet firing murderous Somalis into the burning World Trade Centre, causing it to collapse – they would all agree intensely with your opinions.

‘Show them the money’ has an even more salutary effect, in my experience.

*Or call it people being “fooled by political correctness” if you prefer – cut it however you like, and it’s still standard Commie rhetoric, and look how well they’ve fared in the UK in the past century or so.

That doesn’t seem to deter present-day cultural marxists from falling back on the old reliable standby of denouncing anyone who questions their orthodoxy as mentally disturbed, as you have succinctly demonstrated during the course of our little chinwag.

11:24 am, December 10, 2009134. Jim Bliss@127 Dan Dare

Just because someone compiles a set of statistics based upon skin colour still doesn’t mean it’s sensible to group people of the same colour together for the purposes of asking “what have they done for us”. There’s no “they” there. It’s not a coherent basis upon which to judge collective value. That you have chosen to do so is basically racism.

Yes, I know it was very naughty of me to use the government’s own classification scheme as a basis for distinguishing between different groups of non-indigenes, but it mitigation I’d like it noted that in using the ‘what have blacks ever done for us?’ meme I was semi-ironically parroting Mr. FR’s pythonesque rhetoric.

The question that I would really like answered is: “What is immigration for and how has it benefitted us non-migrants?” So far nobody here has chosen to grasp that particular nettle, perhaps Unity will when he publishes the final installment of his series on immigration. If he doesn’t, I will raise it again there too.

Let me just deal with the Freud thing first and then we’ll get on to the r-word. So no, I haven’t read him myself and am relying upon the conclusions of others who have and whose opinions I respect. Is it actually necessary though to have read everything ever published before being qualified to express an opinion? I am prepared to go along with the general point that race is one of the weaker factors on which group coherence can be measured, but am unclear how that precludes the sorting of population groups by various parameters (eg IQ, propensity to criminality, etc) on racial grounds.

On to the r-word. It is a depressingly familiar experience at venues such as this one for non-believers in the multicultural state or those who question standard mantras such as ‘diversity is our strength’ that sooner, rather than later, an adversary will always resort to playground-style name-calling. The very act of objecting to one’s homeland being demographically transformed into something that few actually want and none ever asked for is apparently ipso facto evidence of racist belief. If such objection is the mark of a racist then I plead guilty as charged, M’lud.

Fair enough. I have no reason to doubt your veracity. If you claim you have DNA evidence that your ancestors arrived in Britain 11 thousand and 2,100 years ago and never inter-bred with anyone who arrived later than that then so be it. You are aware, however, that such a lineage puts you in a tiny minority, though, right? And to base residence rights on such a lineage is utterly impractical.

I’m not aware of having called for residence rights to be based on evidence of such an improbably remote possibility. It is obvious that such interbreeding will have taken place over such a long historical period. But that obscures the point that even the ‘invaders’ were (until very recently) of practically identical genetic stock to the existing population and that they stopped coming a thousand years ago. Since then there had been almost no alteration to the genetic profile of the population until the 1950s.

On the other hand, DNA testing might be helpful for someone whose recent family history is unknown or unclear. The vast majority of the population know their antecedents and where they were born. If not, it is relatively simple to find out, at least as far back as 1837.

140. FlyingRodent

‘Mongrel stock’ is a simply a pejorative deployed by immigration enthusiasts…

No, it isn’t. For it to be a pejorative term in this sense, I would have to attach some particular importance to the concept of a pure-bred idealised “British” race that is in some way superior to every other on the planet or any mix thereof. The idea that having a very mixed – i.e. “mongrel” – heritage is somehow inferior is one that I leave to white supremacists.

Which is one major reason why I don’t fancy shooting the shit with your pals. Attempting to convince the type of person who spends their spare time sniffing their own DNA for ethnic purity that racism is a bullshit enterprise is nobody’s idea of an entertaining or productive night in, for much the same reasons that would put me off arguing for the wisdom of Pope Benedict with a bunch of Orangemen.

Doesn’t the prospect of evangelising to a whole new flock of potential converts, perhaps even saving some souls in the process, have any appeal?

You appear to have mistaken me for someone who is particularly concerned about your opinions or those of your readers. I can assure you that’s not the case – I write posts on my own blog for fun, and sometimes sites like LibCon choose to republish them.

I’ll leave the evangelising to people who are great campaigners and joiners of political parties. If you want to take your opinions to the public and let them decide, then be my guest. I suggest you start with the stuff about your Mum’s paleolithic heritage.

As for the various “industries” you’re talking about, I’m at a bit of a loss. We don’t refer to the “Social Worker Industry” or the “Cutting People Out Of Wrecked Cars Industry,” yet these are publicly-funded jobs from which people definitely profit. OTOH, I’ve heard of the “No-win-no-fee industry,” largely from people who hate it and want it destroyed. Coincidentally, the other “industries” you dislike here are all ones that deal with immigrants.

Of the various other “industries” you’re talking about here, I’ll quickly go for the one I know most about – the Human Rights Lawyers Association is not a crack team of 1600 ambulance chasers ready to leap into action. It’s a glorified information-sharing network for lawyers who are qualified to deal with cases with human rights elements – the number of pure human rights challenges in the UK are negligible, and usually restricted to London.

There isn’t anywhere near enough work for 1600 lawyers on human rights in the UK, because most local authorities have made sure they’re compliant with the Convention, which is not particularly taxing. If you want a human rights lawyer in Scotland, for instance, I can think of one medium-sized law firm and two one-bloke-and-a-secretary operations that might possibly take your case, maybe. There’s your “industry,” right there – assuming anyone else is still paying attention, they can take on everything else.

That doesn’t seem to deter present-day cultural marxists from falling back on the old reliable standby of denouncing anyone who questions their orthodoxy as mentally disturbed, as you have succinctly demonstrated during the course of our little chinwag.

There’s a reason why it’s an old reliable standby, and it isn’t the UK’s cultural Marxism. You’ll notice that we’ve had an election in the last five years where immigration was a major factor, and the party pushing the issue lost to Tony Blair, whose personal slipperiness and dishonesty was public knowledge at the time. I won’t say good luck if you want to give it a bash yourself, but I don’t fancy your chances.

141. FlyingRodent

On to the r-word. It is a depressingly familiar experience at venues such as this one for non-believers in the multicultural state…

If you’d rather be called a “non-believer in the multicultural state” than a racist because you find the latter upsetting and unpleasant, whatever the dictionary definition of “racist” is, no doubt someone somewhere will accommodate that. I never had you down as a believer in political correctness, though.

What is immigration for and how has it benefitted us non-migrants?

I feel very wounded. I’m an immigrant to the UK. My non-migrant employers tell me I give a strong performance at work and I buy drinks for my non-migrant friends. I spend money at non-migrant shops and pay taxes to the non-migrant government. I appreciate the non-migrant countryside and non-migrant culture and write about them at length on my blog. Non-migrant people have been kind enough to say that they’d miss me if I returned to my very own non-migrant home.

However, I don’t know if I’d pass the DNA test.

Oh OK then you can stay. Never let it be said I’m not open to a compellingly persuasive argument, one backed by solid statistics and untainted by anecdotal evidence. But other ten million can sling their hook.

140. FlyingRodent
No, it isn’t.

Yes it is. It is intended to be taken in that sense by the native population in order to pre-empt any resistance to the ongoing process of future mongrelisation. The fact that you personally don’t perceive it as a slight is neither here nor there. It is deployed for the purpose I describe even to the extent of forming part of the indoctrination that our children receive at school. The plain fact of the matter is that native Britons are not racial mongrels in any scientifically-meaningful sense any more than are native Chinese or native Nigerians, so it not simply untrue but also an insult to anyone with any pride in their ancestry and heritage. Which seems to exclude you own goodself.

Which is one major reason why I don’t fancy shooting the shit with your pals.

Ah well, we’ll consider it our loss. You could have taught us so much.

As for the various “industries” you’re talking about, I’m at a bit of a loss. We don’t refer to the “Social Worker Industry” or the “Cutting People Out Of Wrecked Cars Industry,” yet these are publicly-funded jobs from which people definitely profit. OTOH, I’ve heard of the “No-win-no-fee industry,” largely from people who hate it and want it destroyed. Coincidentally, the other “industries” you dislike here are all ones that deal with immigrants.

There you go see. Why not grasp the opportunity presented and generate some much-needed new blog traffic by coming up with a bunch of catchy new sector titles for things you and chums don’t care for. How about the Free Speech Industry, or the Freedom of Association Industry? Maybe also the People Who Object to Their Homeland Being Infested by Darkies Industry. I’m sure you can come with some good ones on your own. You’re Scotch right, so how about a Sassenachs Out Industry. That’ll go down a bomb with your mates I’d have thought.

You’ll notice that we’ve had an election in the last five years where immigration was a major factor, and the party pushing the issue lost to Tony Blair, whose personal slipperiness and dishonesty was public knowledge at the time.

You’re not talking about the one where the Nasty Party threatened to crack down on asylum abuse, introduce strong border controls and bring in an Australian-style points based ‘managed’ migration system, are you? It’s no wonder they didn’t get elected, putting forward such an airy-fairy scheme that anyone could see was going to turn out to be totally ineffective. Or was it the BNP? I forget now, it’s hard to tell these mainstream parties apart these days, they’re all angling for the ethnic vote.

You’d have thought though that it might have dawned on either Tweedledee or Tweedledum by now that when 70% or more of the electorate flag a single issue as being of great significance for them, it might just be something that could be usefully latched onto for one or the other’s benefit. As it is, they seem quite satisfied to ignore the issue and alienate around half the electorate who choose to stay at home rather than turn out to vote for parties that don’t have their interests at heart.

141. FlyingRodent

If you’d rather be called a “non-believer in the multicultural state” than a racist because you find the latter upsetting and unpleasant….

I don’t find it upsetting or unpleasant, merely tedious and puerile. It’s a leading indicator that your adversary is an intellectual pigmy who confuses name-calling for argumentation. But if you insist on placing everybody you disagree with into a neatly-labelled pigeonhole, then I’d like to be called an ethno-nationalist if it’s all the same to you. Thanks.

145. douglas clark

Dan Dare,

So, what are we supposed to make of mixed race couples or their children? A good thing or a bad thing. You haven’t been exactly explicit about that yet, have you?

146. Colonel Richard Hindrance (Mrs) VC, DSO & Bar Six, KitKat

Dan Dare, it *is* nothing more than political correctness that makes you want to be known as an “ethno-nationalist” rather than a racist. Any professor of political science will inform you that throughout the 20th century, the racists responsible for all that genocide and slaughter, in Poland, German, Bosnia, were “ethno-nationalists.”

That’s the silly thing about fringe reactionaries. They’re more PC than an outreach worker from Haringey.

147. FlyingRodent

Which seems to exclude you own goodself.

My family are more or less equal parts Irish, Scots and English, but I could no more give a shit whether my very distant ancestors were from Atlantis or Madeupistan than I do about your hilarious “My folks have been here since the Paleolithic/And anyway, the Romans were white too” gags.

The country I live in is unrecognisable from the one that existed even three centuries ago, and I can take plenty of pride in it and its people as they actually exist without having to resort to some half-arsed, Zeppelin-esque ethnic fantasy about my ancestors stomping around ancient Britain looking like Beowulf for a false sense of security and superiority.

Why not grasp the opportunity presented and generate some much-needed new blog traffic by coming up with a bunch of catchy new sector titles for things you and chums don’t care for.

Because I’m not a propagandist or even a political activist. I’m not interested in banging the drum for any of the people, causes or trends that you so clearly despise; I am, however, interested clearing away some of the wackier ideological baggage from the crowded aisle of our national discourse. I reckon nutty ideologues should be exposed as such and that publicity generally works, especially when combined with pointing and laughing.

Now this, uttered by you under the category “Things you and your chums don’t care for”…

…the Free Speech Industry

You are writing this under a post that explicitly urges you to state your opinions and have them judged by the public at large, and a thread filled with affirmation and reaffirmation of that principle. What you mean here is “your right to disseminate racist propaganda without being called racist,” which is on a par with my “right” to fart in a crowded lift without everyone using the words “fart” or “smell”.

(“Racism” is) a leading indicator that your adversary is an intellectual pigmy who confuses name-calling for argumentation.

Ho ho, always with the name-calling, those intellectual pygmies. How unjust when an Englishman can’t characterise his country as “infested by darkies” without the horrible liberals using the R-word.

I see though that you are now calling yourselves “ethno-nationalists” rather than the more obvious “white supremacists” or just plain “racists”. I have to warn you that this ruse will likely disguise you for about a week and a half, since public revulsion at your politics isn’t based on branding – it’s based on your politics. You could call yourselves “Furry Bouncy Puppy Nationalists” and within months, the voting public would be skipping over the the new FBPN Party on their ballots towards parties that aren’t filled with racists, conspiracy nuts, cranks, misanthropes and thugs.

they’re all angling for the ethnic vote

Of course they are. I imagine Phil Woolas is quite the heartthrob amongst young black and Asian girls.

You’re Scotch right, so how about a Sassenachs Out Industry. That’ll go down a bomb with your mates I’d have thought.

IHow I would love to see you come to Scotland and sit down with a few of our small minority of racist nationalists. It’d be interesting to see how you deal with ridiculous arguments on ethnicity, race and tradition when the boot is on the other foot.

Oh OK then you can stay.

Thank you Massa.

So “ethno-nationalist” is the new non black, is it?

Thank you Massa.

Please don’t mention it, it’s the very least I could do for someone who gets her very own profile on normblog and who’s not even Jewish! At least I’m assuming that’s the case. There aren’t any Jewish Abos, are there?

By the way blacks can be ethno-nationalists too and very often are.

150. Colonel Richard Hindrance (Mrs) VC, DSO & Bar Six, KitKat

Wow!!! Really?!! You’re so *clever*!!!

And not racist at all, apparently.

I am, however, interested clearing away some of the wackier ideological baggage from the crowded aisle of our national discourse. I reckon nutty ideologues should be exposed as such and that publicity generally works, especially when combined with pointing and laughing.

You seem to have picked a good spot for it here, plenty of suitable cases for treatment I should have thought.

Well I have enjoyed our little chat but since you appear to not have much new or of interest to impart I’ll say cheerio for now.

I may pop back in from time to time to see whether Unity ever gets round to finishing off his magnum opus. I do hope we haven’t put him off.

152. FlyingRodent

You seem to have picked a good spot for it here, plenty of suitable cases for treatment I should have thought.

In fairness, even the crazier commenters at LC don’t declare direct lineage from Odin, but chacun a son gout. That’s “each to their own”, in more ethnically-patriotic language. Cheerio, though.

133. FlyingRodent:

Given that Ogundele and Jolie’s attempted murder was what prompted Rod Liddle to write that article in the first place, your disregard for the facts is incredible. TNB.

Given that Ogundele and Jolie’s attempted murder was what prompted Rod Liddle to write that article in the first place, your disregard for the facts is incredible. TNB.

But it wasn’t about their attempted murder, was it? He was frothing on how frightful black people are. As a rule of thumb, I’d assume people are against young men trying to drown their pregnant girlfriends unless otherwise stated, particularly when it’s of only tangential relevance.

Oh dear, more italic weirdness. Preview button, Sunny?

Sy,

I think most people, y’know black, brown, white etc, would see what Ogundele and Jolie did as pretty abhorrent.

I am Scottish. Am I supposed to excuse Scottish killers on the basis that they are Scottish? Well, I don’t think I will and I doubt any black person would excuse Ogundele or Jolie either.

It is a messed up arguement.

What a horrible pair of self centred egoists they were.

Douglas
Not quite sure what you’re getting at. The first para of my post was a quote from Tim B. It goes without saying that Ogundele and Jolie deserve every day of their sentence.

There is no reason to expect groups to have equal propensities to criminality though. Testosterone, often linked with violent crime, differs between racial groups.

“Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Also, are readily identifiable clusters of genes corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

MAO-A variants which place people at greater risk of aggressive behaviour (in combination with childhood maltreatment) also show different frequency distributions across groups.

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1250/2441/

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

Also, note global crime rates are consistent with the rates observed by Liddle.

Rushton, J.P., & Whitney, G. (2002). Cross-national variation in violent crime rates: Race, r-K theory, and income. Population and Environment, 23, 501-511

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/P&E%20Crime.pdf


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  2. 5 Chinese Crackers

    RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  3. Malky Muscular

    Malky elsewhere – Liberal Conspiracy, on wingnuts and teabaggers… http://bit.ly/5idL4c

  4. Daniel Selwood

    RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  5. Sam the Drummer

    RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  6. JamieSW

    RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  7. Ben Rooney

    What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/91D0dW

  8. Sim-O

    RT @5ChinCrack: RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  9. Tweets that mention Liberal Conspiracy » What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? -- Topsy.com

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Liberal Conspiracy and Sim-O, 5 Chinese Crackers. 5 Chinese Crackers said: RT @libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT [...]

  10. uberVU - social comments

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: :: What to do about boggle-eyed Spectator bores? http://bit.ly/7clPUT

  11. Indigo Jo Blogs — The Spectator: where arrogant privilege meets bigotry

    [...] and was a founder member of Rock Against Racism. Let’s see if that excuse holds water. (More: Liberal Conspiracy, Five Chinese [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.