I see that the BBC gives considerable prominence to to empty-headed wittering of the left wing Runnymede Trust which once again accuses our Police of being “institutionally racist.” At a time when criminals run rampant on our streets and justice is turned into a laughing stock the best the BBC can do is try and further undermine the integrity of those who at least try to uphold law and order by giving the Runnymede Trust a bully-pulpit to conduct their war on policing. Might it be possible to consider the bona fides of this Organisation when presenting their “report”? Could it be that Runnymede is institutionally biased against British Policing? I note the use of the image of Stephen Lawrence in this story, murdered “by white youths” as the BBC solemnly informs. But since then, sadly, many more black youths have lost their lives at the hands of ” black youths” in London. You never get that context. The suggestion running through this entire article is that our Police are racists and the BBC seems very content to spew this out oxic poison out hoping enough of it sticks.
STILL INSTITUTIONALLY RACIST?
Bookmark the permalink.
Lord Macpherson’s “Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go” intellectual invention of “institutional racism” (pension of Lord McPherson please?) leaves us paying a heavy price. No doubt buildings, walls and canteens can be racist without their realising it. And the “anti-racists” – is anyone in your street thinking inapropriate or unacceptable thoughts – denounce them! – are repeating Macarthyism of the 50’s.
Here in New York it’s the same endless nonsense. The New York Civil Liberties Union will periodically release a report calling the NYPD institutionally racist based on the fact that the majority of stop and frisks are carried out on blacks and Hispanics. Then, the NYPD counter by pointing out that in the vast majority of cases, both the victim and the reported offender was black or Hispanic and that they’re simply concentrating their efforts where the crimes are carried out…then the NYCLU remains silent (because after all, they can’t offer a counter argument that doesn’t exist).
Then another few months pass and the NYCLU make the same accusation and the NYPD give the same explanation and then silence….and so on and so forth.
The left simply isn’t interested in the objective truth – they’re only interested in the temporary effect of making the allegation, before that allegation is debunked.
Of course it helps to have a media outlet like the BBC to promote your claims without giving equal space to the rebuttal – in this case the permitted rebuttal is nothing more than an impotent, ineffective PR line from a “Home Office spokeswoman.” If the BBC were actually interested in the art of impartial journalism they could of course have solicited the views of any number of people who disagree wholeheartedly with the Runnynose report.
Apart from the BBC and like minded wonks, does anyone take the Runneymede Trust seriously.
Have a look at their makeup. It’s just a talking shop for ethnics.
I forgot the BBC and Runnymede Trust have speed dial to each other.
TPO,
Yes, but a useful tool to bludgeon our police.
Alas, the BBC is institutionally stupid.
Organisations such as this trust can play all the games they wish…the facts of black on black crime and the disproportionate number of black on white murders will not go away.
Whilst I think you are using ‘bias’ as a pretext for a rant here David, you may be hinting at a valid point.
Racism of course is an issue that needs to be addressed and dealt with. but it sometimes feels like we live in a society where racism is seen as somehow worse than any other crime. as if a racist crime is more worthy of attention that an equal crime that doesnt have a racial element. if this is what you were getting at, then you have a point.
no chance of an open thread?
just saying this, because – shock horror – Paxman’s Victorian documentary was actually rather good! just good history, interesting, and no awful judgemental stuff.
a cracking history documentary. which is a VERY rare thing on the BBC nowadays.
as if a racist crime is more worthy of attention that an equal crime that doesnt have a racial element. if this is what you were getting at, then you have a point.
Gus Haynes | 15.02.09 – 9:52 pm
it IS. thats the law. i have lost track of the amount of news stories where “racist” crimes invoke more police resources than “pensioner getting mugged” crimes.
of course, its deemed not to be a “racist” crime if a white guy is beaten up by a gang of black guys.
Mr Ed,
in pretty much the same way that there is a permanent BBC implication that racist hate crimes all originate in the host population. Antisemitism has grown massively recently, but we have had no explanation as to who is conducting the abuse / attacks / vandalism. Could it be that certain elements of the population harbour ‘institutionally’ racist views? Isn’t it ‘institutionally’ racist of the BBC to present a partial picture of the situation – distorting by omission – just to avoid embarrassing revelations about specific elements of our society?
Too much information would not be good for the narrative
so…we agree or not? kinda hard to tell from your post….
Sorry to be off topic, but did you guys know the bbc have a you tube channel? Where you can leave feedback.
here
“hate crimes” attract a higher tariff than “ordinary crimes”. So if I am attached and beaten by midless oafs because the ‘don’t like the look of my face’ thats one thing. However If they attack me because I believe they don’t like to colour of my face and I assert as much to the police -then that is worth a lot more points to the constabulary and potential promotion to the fast streamer who is counting the beans. the important thing is that the victim has just to assert that something is racist for it to be so.
Can anybody explain the relationship between reality and this twisted version? I could just as well assert that the criminals were possessed by devils – (mind you ritual witchcraft is on the rise in London as we speak). Would ‘demonic crime’ get more attention?
Thanks Gosh
http://www.guncrime.org/race_ethnicity.html
“So it seems that whether in America or in England the greater the racial and ethnic discrimination the greater the homicide rate”
which is a typical beeboid argument.
one has to wonder what south africa proves. we all know whats happened there post-apartheid…
I wonder what the real liberal view of murder would be – perhaps they would think that every murder is just as bad as another. Why is killing one kind of person more abhorrent than killing another kind. Why should one murderer get a lesser sentence than another.
Murder is a heinous crime and should be treated as such.
The lefts view of equality is nothing of the kind. As i am sure a lot of people know.
It’s all too much | 15.02.09 – 10:23 pm
“hate crime” attracts a higher tariff from judges because of the race relations act of 1968.
the act that Enoch Powell was REALLY ON ABOUT in his “rivers of blood” speech.
Powell’s main point in the speech is that all Englishmen should be treated equally under the law – and all crimes should be treated equally. A murder is a murder is a murder.
The race relations act broke that fundemental tenet of English law. and its been downhill ever since.
THAT is what Powell was on about.
Powell was NOT on about the racist bollocks of the “wogs” going on riot – as the “Enoch Was Right” numbskulls were on about.
Powell was more on about how the act treated a white guy being beaten up by blacks, as less serious than a black guy being beaten up by whites.
in his view , English law should be colour blind – an offence is an offence. irrespective of motive.
and English law was pretty much colour blind at that time, compared to likes of the United States. we had something to be proud of.
but no – that wasnt enough for the socialists. so they got rid of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powell%27s-%27Rivers-of-Blood%27-speech.html
full speech. worth reading. in my view, its as predictive of the future as George Orwell.
but i do like this bit by Powell early on:
” can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. ”
he did not have the right to shut up his constituent – he HAD the duty to speak up for that person.
now, name a single politician nowadays who would do such a thing..
i dare say – the folks who are continueing that Powell tradition of speaking up for their constituents are the Muslim MPs and folks like Lord Ahmed.
no P.C. bollocks for them… and good luck to them – its just that the f**kers on our side have become a bunch of spineless twerps.
e.g. the Wilders fiasco.
Mr Ed,
I think I agree with what you’re saying in regards to Powell. My view is that the law should remove barriers to racial discrimination, and that is it. Once discriminatory/racist laws are gone, then we have equality. Problem is that successive governments have tried to force equality through legislation, through positive discrimination etc. You cannot enforce equality beyond removing obstacles to it. If that makes sense…
It comes naturally, and over time. Equality, true equality,won’t come from laws continually being passed and a media chasing any story that has a whiff of racism.
Andrewsouthlondon,
apparently McCarthy wasnt “McCarthyite” at least according to Ann Coulter in her interesting book “Treason” – apparently people were worried about Communist spies in the government becasue there were communist spies in the government and there has been a massive and successful attempt to rewrite history to blacken his name. She argues that it was him and others such as Whitacker Chambers (I think thats the right name) who were unfairly persecuted and that McCarthy was a patriotic and very intelligent person. Seeing we all know that socialists will try and rewrite the present let alone the past I find this very credible. Its also a good read – starts by saying that Democrats would even oppose their country in a game of scrabble. Assuming its true he has been as badly treated as Enoch Powell.
Didnt see the victorian documentary but read an interesting artcle in the telegraph giving an alternative view:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherhowse/4615162/How-the-Victorians-had-more-fun-than-us.html
Francis,
don’t trust Annie C too much. She is insane. Her views are her views, but shes just extreme. Everytime I see on the TV, and want to hear some sense, I shuddder when she comes out with some nonsense. Womans crackers.
Francis | 15.02.09 – 11:53 pm |
Thanks for the link – excellent piece.
Fricker | 15.02.09 – 11:57 pm | #
I wouldn’t call Coulter insane at all. She’s constantly painted as insane because she has the integrity to avoid being hectored and bullied into denouncing her own views by liberal phonies whose only arguments against her seem to be variations of “surely you don’t really believe that” (a la the Paxman interview). I saw her recently on the US show “The View” which is presented by a gaggle of liberal women (Whoopee Goldberg is one, to give you an idea). They did their best to demonize her and paint her as “mean” but good old Ann, she wasn’t having any of it and stuck to her factual guns throughout. The clip is available on YouTube.
Ann isn’t extreme, she just speaks her mind and doesn’t care who’s offended by the truth. She would probably have a thing or two to say about me being an atheist, but in general I also agree with her views on the persecution of Christians by liberals in society, etc. She also makes some cracking points about crime and single parenthood. All very touchy subjects, it’s no wonder the left can’t cope with her.
Apart from anything, she’s an incredibly funny writer and her books make some great points very humorously.
Ann Coulter is hurting conservative America – she makes all conservatives look like foaming madmen, yelling louder, and bleating on about predictable easy subjects. She preaches to the choir – the rest of the country looks at her and laughs.
Yorrick | 16.02.09 – 12:33 am | #
Again, I will repeat that she is not foaming or “mad” in any sense. This is just a populist characterization of her on the left. She’s outspoken and not politically correct. This counts as “mad” in the topsy-turvy world of the left. Her books sell incredibly well, better than Michael Moore’s for example.
The idea that Ann is “hurting conservative America” is just tish and pish. I think lightweight centrists like John McCain probably have more to do with THAT.
Yorrick | 16.02.09 – 12:33 am |
came across coulter today on one of the american talk radio stations (over the net)
jesus does she have a screeching voice. like listening to a dentists drill at 140 decibals.
methinks the conservative movement should look elsewhere.
mike steele, by contrast – sounds awesome on radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Steele
GOP chairman.
Jason | 16.02.09 – 12:41 am
jason – i have listened to hugh hewitt and denis praeger for the past 3 or 4 years. and NOT ONCE has either invited ann coulter onto their shows.
i think that says it all.
those guys are clever. and they can smell a trot a mile off…
Apart from anything, she’s an incredibly funny writer and her books make some great points very humorously.
Jason | 16.02.09 – 12:25 am |
she’s a fcuking bigot and a fascist.
i have no time whatsoever for people like her.
archduke | 16.02.09 – 12:49 am | #
No, that “doesn’t say it all” at all, unless you wish to claim that Hewitt and Praeger have the last word on the validity (or not) of Coulter’s views.
archduke | 16.02.09 – 12:56 am | #
“A bigot and a fascist?”
Let me know when your time of the month is over, archduke.
Jon, I am glad you found it as interesting as I did. I have appreciated many of your links in the past.
Fricker, I see her as more middle of the road myself but perspective is everything.
Jason, I agree with everything you say especially about her being humorous.
I think this is the discussion you were talking about.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2009/01/left-dont-like-facts-it-gets-in-way-of.html
archduke: For the first time in N years I disagree with you. My take is that AC has come to the correct conclusions and the left, who are in control, do not like it and never let her explain herself.
I used to watch colmes never let her finish a sentence, never mind a paragraph.
Wise up, lad.
‘the law which McCarthy was upholding
was that of ‘UnAmerican Activities’ and passed in 1938 by the democrats to uproot Nazis of course you dont hear much of this from the left, they also forget that the head of world communism after the war at the time was a one Joseph Stalin who I think everybody should have been afraid of!
Also McCarthy had on his team Robert Kennedy!
Jason | 16.02.09 – 12:57 am
“I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport,”
“The “European Union” happens to be composed of people who hate our guts. It is the continent where Moveon.org-style lunatics are the friendly, pro-American types and the rest are crazy Muslims. ”
“I would like evolution to join the roster of other discredited religions, like the Cargo Cult of the South Pacific”
and i can keep going if you want…
please do go on. I cant say i have much time for the first but about the eu maybe she has a point
gordon-bennett | 16.02.09 – 1:00 am
oh – i am aware of what i am saying. just saying “dont follow the siren”
its not the best answer.
Francis | 16.02.09 – 1:03 am
full article:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=181
archduke – on the subject of quotations – this will make you laugh.
“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty • by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather then reduces the sphere of freedom.”
Gordon Brown
Jon | 16.02.09 – 1:04 am |
thats like me throwing you a wilted orchid, which is gone off, but still is an orchid, and you throwing back at me a cattle load of manure.
Funny though!!!
coulter is still a babe that i’d have a few pints with..
TOTALLY disagree with her. sometimes i wonder if she’s actually read up the U.S. constitution..
“The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty • by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather then reduces the sphere of freedom.”
can somebody explain just WHAT THE FUCK THIS MEANS?
On topic – the police are institutionally racist – they must be because the have associations which obey the apartheid laws – how else can you have a “Black police association”?
I took it as Brown wanting to build on our traditional freedoms – I expect I was wrong.
we not only have separation on race, we also have a sectarian society
http://www.mpacuk.org/
Jon | 16.02.09 – 1:13 am
oh right – the traditional freedoms that were wiped out with the Civil Contigencies Act..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Contingencies_Act_2004
This is a larger section of that quote if anyone is interested:
Which brings me to this week’s scandal about No Such Agency spying on “Americans.” I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.
But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.
With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I’m not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war.
I read AC’s column via Drudge and she is always informative and very funny – like John Redwood but with laughs (and bigger tits).
She also reminds me of JR in that being so feared by the left she had to be not only attacked but also portrayed as ludricrous so as not to be taken seriously. I call it “pre-vilifying”.