via DFH in the comments, Raymond Snoddy (‘until this week not one word on national TV bulletins‘) interviews Peter Horrocks (Realplayer video), head of TV news, on the Kriss Donald coverage. They’ve had 200 complaints about the lack thereof. But then ‘the British National Party has encouraged its members to write in‘, as Mr Horrocks points out.
He struggles gamely with a few straw men of his own devising (I paraphrase)- ‘we couldn’t cover the trial the way we’d like to under Scottish law – for instance we aren’t allowed to show photos of the accused, which obviously show that they were Asian and the victim was white …’
I see. If only those photos were available it would have been all over BBC Television news ! And was the particular ethnicity of the alleged murderers relevant ? Surely it was their alleged murderousness and their alleged racism that was relevant ?
We see the ‘only whites could be racists but it’s changing‘ meme a la Mark Easton.
‘I think there is something interesting about racial crime, that in the past it’s been seen as largely racial crime against blacks and Asians …‘
Been seen by whom exactly ? You’d think he was looking in from the outside, dispassionately describing some fascinating natural process outside man’s power to control.
Regrets, he’s had a few.
‘I do wish we’d covered the trial on its first day …‘
‘But you also didn’t cover the first trial’
‘Yes, and we should have done – and we should have done that …‘
We’ll add that to ‘in hindsight, it was a mistake not to report the case of Ross Parker more extensively’ and ‘I think, however, we should have mentioned the Whelan murder, however briefly‘, shall we ?
DFH also provided links to the Fran Unsworth interview after the Anthony Walker coverage. Ms Unsworth doesn’t know if the Kriss Donald murder was a racist crime, and she also knows that there are about 850 homicides a year in the UK (850 homicides is the England and Wales figure). Fran Unsworth is head of “BBC Newsgathering”.
“Their force is wonderful great and strong” wrote Admiral Howard of the Armada, “yet we pluck their feathers little by little“. Or as Hardy rightly said “continual dropping will wear away a Stone – ay, more – a Diamond.” Maybe one day we won’t have to do this. Chance would be a fine thing.
‘I think there is something interesting about racial crime, that in the past it’s been seen as largely racial crime against blacks and Asians …’
It’s been seen that way by the left and progressives simply because it suited their purposes to see it that way. The reality in places like Clapham, Brixton and Lewisham in the 70s and 80s was all rather different. If the BBC had bothered to look, they would have noticed plenty of attacks going on that didn’t fit their preconceived notions of racism. But they had no intention of doing so then, and 30 years later, barely show any intention of doing so today.
“Maybe one day we won’t have to do this. Chance would be a fine thing.”
Come now you know as well as anyone that: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson.
If you stop, they revert.
Report in the Telegraph today about the Archbishop of York stating that the BBC is afraid of Islam and attacks Christianity. I wonder why this isn’t reported on the BBC news website?
The latest versions of the British Crime Survey don’t seem to include the analysis they used to of who commits racially-motivated offences against whom. Perhaps it’s because it’s just too embarrassing?
If one looks, however, at the 2000 BCS, it’s all in there. Looking for instance at page 44/184 (at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors223.pdf) we see that in 1999, there were 280,000 racially motivated incidents, of which 182,000 were committed against whites and 68,000 were committed against blacks or what the BBC would call “plumbers”.
In other words, 65% of the crimes are being carried out by about 6% of the population. It is not wholly clear fom the BCS who is doing all the crime against blacks and plumbers, but it is possible, of course, that the perpetrator is not always white.
Roughly speaking, therefore, a member of an ethnic minority is about 29 times more likely to commit a racially-motivated “incident” than a white Briton.
You will not of course ever hear any discussion of this on al-BBC, apparently because the lefties think that the actual number of racial crimes committed by ethnics is in fact zero, pretty much by definition.
When lefties do engage with this issue, which is rarely, they prefer instead to accentuate the fact that because the 68,000 anti-ethnic incidents are distributed amongst fewer people, the likelihood of a plumber being a victim is higher. Well, yes, it is, but so what? If you want to hunt down a racist thug, you are looking for a needle in a haystack if you go after white racist thugs, whereas among the ethnic minorities, they are 29 times more likely to be found. So any crackdown on racially motivated criminality should logically focus on catching blacks and plumbers.
This, of course, represents an almost exact inversion of the lefty worldview, but it is inescapable that in reality, racially-motivated crime is done not mostly against but mostly by ethnic minorities.
Ah, but does the “white” victim tally include minority ethnic groups such as Poles, Irish, Turks(?), Americans, most Jews etc etc many or most of which I would imagine are carried out by white British people? Can’t tell ’cause your link doesn’t work.
Cockney,
That’s funny, it was working when I posted it and now it’s not.
Let’s try that again:
Click to access hors223.pdf
That was working just now.
In answer to your question, the BCS of 2000 does split out attacks by ethnicity of attacker and victim. Here’s its table, which I’ve screengrabbed in case the link plays up:-
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m62/beaufighter/RMC-1.jpg
What that says is that where whites were attacked, 18% of the time the attacker was another white. Where blacks were attacked, 22% of the time the attacker was another black; and where plumbers were attacked, 4% of the time it was by another plumber.
If you apply the percentages in that table to the overall number of crimes you find that white offenders committed 101,000 offences; blacks 83,000; plumbers 65,000; others 12,000; and “mixed” 21,000 (total 280,000 with a bit of rounding error).
I am not sure what to make of “other” or “mixed”, but if you divide those first three back by their representation in the population – I think it is about 2.5% black and 4% Asian – you find that blacks were 31 times more likely than whites to commit a racially-motivated crime against somebody in 1999, and plumbers were 15 times more likely.
What that is nowadays I don’t really know. I suspect the plumbers are getting even more out of hand. Given that the left makes strenuous efforts to avoid attributing racial crime to plumbers (such as the notorious incident when The EU commissioned a report on the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe, but the authors found that the main cause was an increase in attacks from Muslim youths. The Commission binned the non-PC report, and ordered a PC one that blamed the rise on white skinheads instead; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1969035,00.html), I would not be surprised if what data we are allowed to see had been massaged a bit first.
“Roughly speaking, therefore, a member of an ethnic minority is about 29 times more likely to commit a racially-motivated “incident” than a white Briton.”
You may want to read the small print. For starters, 18% of race crimes committed against whites are by whites. (Blacks accounted for 22% of racist crimes against blacks).
Secondly, insofar as the crime was specifically a racist one, the BCS report says:
“The accounts of white victims tended to differ; they were less likely to report that racist language had been used, and the incidents were more likely to take place away from the
victim’s home. In addition, the offender’s race was more often the determining factor in the victim’s assessment of the racial intent of the incident.
Cockney
Sorry, just to be clear – I am assuming that because the BCS recognises the possoibility of white racial attacks on other whites, the data includes within that category incidents such as those you mention (against Poles etc).
Also, more detail on the EU’s racist reference to blame whites for attacks on Jews:-
the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia…commissioned a report on anti-Semitism in Europe, and then suppressed it when the authors concluded that the main cause of rising anti-Semitism in Europe is Muslim youths, not skinheads and neo-fascists. The EMCR told the authors, who were Jewish, that the report would undermine their work helping Muslims, who are the most discriminated-against religious group in Europe, and told them to rewrite it to portray the main perpetrators as white racists. When the authors protested that was contrary to the evidence, the EMCR rewrote the report itself, and published it with a summary and conclusion that was at total odds with the evidence actually contained within it. At the press conference, the EMCR repeatedly stated that white skinheads were to blame, despite the evidence inside the report and the views of the researchers. The Independent newspaper followed the politically correct line with an article headlined: White men blamed as attacks on Jews rise.
(http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs47-1.pdf)
Different Anon,
Yes, the usual tired old lefty arguments. See my later post, which breaks out the ratio of attacks more precisely. It’s not 29 times, it’s 31 times if you’re black, or 15 times if you’re a plumber.
Re the question of interpretation, are we or are we not bought into the MacPherson definition of what is or is not a racial incident? If anybody thought it was a racial incident, then it was.
You can’t have it both ways. Arguing that – pace Macpherson – the incidents weren’t really racist, but were just down to Whitey moaning, leads you down a very tricky path in which you end up arguing that whether an incident is racist or not depends on the race of the racist.
I know the BBC thinks that, but it can afford to because nobody gets to challenge it.
camp -commandant
“are we or are we not bought into the MacPherson definition of what is or is not a racial incident? If anybody thought it was a racial incident, then it was.”
Well I’m not. Are you?
Macpherson wasn’t trying to establish subjectivism as a general rule.
The Macpherson formula was about (and only about) best practice for the Police – i.e. the Police would be best advised to classify and investigate ‘as a racial incident’ any offence the victim/ some pressure group / Ken Livingstone / Gareth Pierce / SAID was a racial incident. If they did – then they wouldn’t be open to accusations of ‘failing to treat it as a racial incident’.
As a practical piece of political arse-protection for coppers – it seems sensible.
But the rest of us are free to judge each case on its merits.
John Reith
What evidence have you that 182,000 racially-motivated offences committed against whites in 1999 were less racially motivated than the 98,000 committed against non-whites?
This is what I meant when I said that you risk ending up having to argue that racism depends on the race of the racist.
You’ve got your opinion, I don’t have mine. I just see 6.5% of the population committing 65% of the racist crime, and 93.5% of it committing the other 35%, and unlike you, I don’t reach for the casuistry to kid myself that the numbers aren’t real.
The BCS isn’t compiled by the BNP you know. It’s compiled by people on the government’s payroll vote.
jr
“are we or are we not bought into the MacPherson definition of what is or is not a racial incident? If anybody thought it was a racial incident, then it was.”
I need to consult old colleagues on this as the memory isn’t what it used to be, but I seem to recall that this may appear in legislation rather than just MacPherson’s ramblings.
“Yes, the usual tired old lefty arguments”
.. direct from the Home Office document.
Does lefty just get thrown about as the epithet of choice for anyone you either don’t understand, can’t be bothered to read, or don’t agree with?
The report’s authors are from the “Criminal Policy Research Unit, South Bank Former Poly”. They sound like lefties to me.
Just as a point of information this was on the Tottenham Lad blog [1]. Whether TL is a member of the BNP or not – I don’t know and care less – the analysis is interesting
[1] http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/2005/11/racist-murders-who-are-bad-guys_29.html
Umbongo:
I think you’ll find that, by definition, anyone so tactless as to comment on racist criminality among ethnic minorities can be sneered at as being a member of the BNP. Once that ad hominem attack has been uttered, that person can then be ignored.
Let the facts be silent!
On the point raised by the TL blog, blacks and plumbers are over-represented in (I think) all crime. They are particularly over-represented in racial crime, however.
By way of putting all this into perspective, men commit about 10 times more crime than women. Plumbers commit 15 times more racist crime than whites. So plumbers are more violent than whites like men are more violent than women. That is the degree of difference, although I have understated it quite a lot.
I don’t really buy the liberal racist excuse that all these violent racist ethnic minorities are poor and culturally disadvantaged, and so we should expect these inferior creatures to be violent, racist bigots, because people from that class always are. What is it about plumbers that means they end up in the violent underclass, whereas (for example) Chinese immigrants don’t?
John Reith and co: insert BNP sneer here:-
TPO – a racist crime is “any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or by any other person”.
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh0201.htm
As a good example: If vandals slash the tyres of a whole row of cars in the street and one of them happens to belongs to an ethnic minority, then the police would more than likely report that incident as racially motivated criminal damage, and the others as every day run of the mill criminal damage.
If fact it is positively encouraged so that the local force can prove that they are tackling racist crimes. Another interesting thing is if someone steals from a shop which happens to be owned by an ethnic minority – that would also be entered as a racist crime.
The McPhearson report was, IHMO a disaster for race relations in this country than anything else brought out by this daft Government. It legitimised the suppression of free speech. It was used to kerb any dissent on immigration, and it worked people were and still are paranoid that they may be arrested for what they think.
It is not just race which apparently determines propensity to crime; there’s the cultural contribution as evident by the (low)criminality of Hidus/Sikhs from the Indian sub-continent versus the (high) criminality of muslims from same/similar locations i.e Pakistan.
However, it’s inconclusive to look at the relative criminalities of race groups and cultures within the UK alone. How are things in the wider world? Who are committing the murders in the US, France, Holland and other countries where there is a presence of all groups?
Allan,
The picture in the US is simply that in the UK, writ large. IIRC, blacks are 7 times more likely to commit a murder than whites.
If someone has looked into links between benefit addiction (living long term on other peoples money) and crime I’d be interested.
An additional point of interest is that since the mid 90s, and probably before, ethnic minorities have always been encouraged by numerous community leaders and anti racist groups to report racially motivated crimes, where whites have not. That is apart from the media representing race crime as a white crime.
The interesting thing is that nobody ever questioned the motive or reasoning of the victims in reportign race crimes as long as the BBC and others were failing to report the true statistics.
Now whitey is shown to have suffered more attacks we learn that he is even racist when he reports a racially motivated crime against himself. “Err, he was very black, Officer, so I believe it ‘appened to be a racially motivated crime.” Hmmmm, I don’t think so.
However, the much higher proportion of supposedly racially motivated car crimes again Asians is quite interesting.
However, the much higher proportion of supposedly racially motivated car crimes again(st) Asians is quite interesting.
Perhaps its damage to tyre irons inflicted by the head of whitey when he tried, & failed, to leg it away from the minicab without paying.