Category Archives: public order

What is treason today?

A vital part of the liberal internationalist plot to destroy Britain as an independent nation is the destruction of the concept of treason. They do this the attempt through a tidal wave of propaganda about the joys of diversity, the incessant reciting of mantras such as that “we live in a globalised world” , the signing of treaties which embroil Britain in supra-national authority and the repeal of laws relating to treason. (see http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=TreasonAmend as an example of the present government’s mentality).

A concept of treason is fundamental to every society because it sets the bounds of loyalty. Allow that there is no difference between a native of a state and a foreigner, as the liberal internationalist does in practice, and the coherence of a society is destroyed which puts its very existence under threat.

This is particularly pertinent now because of the emergence of large numbers of British born Muslims showing unambiguously their rejection of British society through violence and threatened violence.

The article below examines what constitutes treason today. It was published in Right Now! magazine in 2001.
What is treason today?

Robert Henderson

Treason is a famously slippery word, not least for the reason enshrined in the oft-quoted but, because it contains a savage truth, eternally potent rhyme:
Treason never prospers,
What’s the reason?
For if it does
None dare call it treason.

Yet elusive as it is, treason clearly has an objective reality, a reality, moreover, whose essence is changeless. That quality is betrayal which goes beyond the personal. If a friend betrays you to another friend that is not treason. If a fellow countryman betrays you to an occupying power that is treason.

As a legal concept, treason has been redrawn during the past millennium. In a dynastic context, where the king is king in executive fact as well as name, treason is the betrayal of the sovereign by a person who owes him allegiance. That betrayal may be through disloyalty or an attempt to harm the person of the monarch (and generally his family). By extension, the same applies to those to whom the monarch’s executive power is delegated. Kill the King’s man and you attack the King.

But treason in dynastic circumstances was not a straightforward matter of simply plotting against the king or attempting harm to the king’s person or doing the same to his representatives. A great noble or courtier close to the king might well lose his head through being deemed to have given “evil counsel” to the monarch, even though that counsel had been accepted and acted upon by the king. The “evil counsellor” would be blamed (and probably executed) to ensure that the monarch was not held to account.
The idea of “evil counsel” had an important effect in English constitutional development and a consequent broadening of the idea of treason. Evil counsellors were generally identified not by the king but by others, most notably Parliament. Thus the practical application of the idea of the evil counsellor both reinforced the idea that the monarch was not a completely independent agent and created the idea that any man involved in politics owed not merely his formal loyalty to the king (and later the people), but also should take care to act and speak in a way which would not be to the disadvantage of the king and his subjects.

The notion of treason evolved in Europe because monarchs have rarely if ever been able to act indiscriminately in their own interests. Indeed, European monarchs have been remarkably unsuccessful in creating efficient and lasting despotisms. Because of that, their subjects never truly succumbed to politically debilitating ideas such as the divine right of kings. Rather they expected of a king duty as well self-promotion and satisfaction. The concept of the unjust prince was well developed by 1100 and culminated in the doctrine of tyranicide developed by John of Salisbury in the 12th Century. Here is Manegold of Lautenbach writing in the 11th Century:

No man can make himself emperor or king; a people sets a man over it to the end that he may rule justly, giving to every man his own, aiding good men and coercing bad, in short, that he may give justice to all men. If then he violates the agreement according to which he was chosen, disturbing and confounding the very things which be was meant to put in order, reason dictates that he absolves the people from their obedience, especially when he has himself first broken the faith which bound him and the people together.*

* Quoted by A.J. and R.W. Carlyle in A history of Medieval Political Theory in the West , Vol. III, p. 164, n. 1.

For Manegold a people’s allegiance to its ruler is a promise support him in his lawful undertakings and is consequently void in the case of a tyrant. In a sense, a tyrant committed treason by dishonouring the office of monarch and its implied and inherent obligations.

Restraints on the monarch were given formal status by their coronation oaths. In England, Magna Carta (1215) moved matters on to another stage where a monarch was forced to agree to direct constraints on his power. The example of Magna Carta in turn led to the development of the English Parliament, which moved from a petitioning and tax granting body in the 14th century to the point where it practically, if not in theory, usurped the power of the king.

As the power of monarchs waned, the emphasis of who was betrayed gradually moved to the idea that the entire population of a country was an entity in itself and betrayal of that entity amounted to treason. The shift from monarch to people was completed with the advent of the formally democratic state, where, in theory at least, the general population became the sovereign.

Of what does treason consist in the formally democratic nation state? Generally it must be the conscious decision to act in a way which will weaken the integrity of the nation state. Betrayal in the old manner of spying or acting for an enemy in war is still part of that. But the primary treason in the modern formally democratic state is more insidious. It is the abrogation of the sovereignty of the nation state by immersement in larger political entities and through the signing of treaties which restrict the opportunity for national self-determination.

This raises an interesting question, namely can an elected politician commit treason if the treasonable activity is part of an election manifesto or it is put to a referendum? The textbook answer would be that ultimate sovereignty in a formal democracy lies practically and morally, if not always legally, with the electorate. An electorate which elects a party or individual on a manifesto or votes yes in a referendum is considered to be tacitly granting the policy legitimacy. However, there are strong objections to this interpretation.

The first is that the treasonable activity may be misrepresented by the party or politician. A classic example of this is Britain’s entry into what is now the European Union (EU). The British electorate were undeniably deliberately misled by the 1970 Tory manifesto into believing that they were merely joining a free trade area.

They were deliberately misled again during the 1975 referendum on Britain’s continued membership. They have been deliberately misled consistently in the 35 years since the referendum, being told by every government that British sovereignty is not being lost, when massive amounts have been ceded. That is treason by any meaningful definition that has ever been used in the past.

But what if all the sovereignty which had been ceded to the EU had been done after it was presently honestly to the electorate? Suppose every change had been the subject of a referendum. Suppose those referendums had been conducted with absolutely fairness.What then? Here the old idea of “evil counsellors” has utility. In the modern formal democracy, politicians play the role of counsellors. Where their counsel is bad and the results of it disadvantages the people to which they owe their good sense and loyalty, then that might be said to be treasonable. Our representatives owe us their best judgement and courage. If they act in a way which is compromised by considerations other than their honest judgement and that action has results which are treasonable, they are guilty of treason. Not only that, but the representative must be honest about the foreseeable consequences of what they propose. In the representative’s special position, treason may be committed though acts of omission as well as commission, through not pointing out consequences.

What are the great particular treasons of our time? They can be defined in terms of what causes damage to the viability of the nation state. In the case of Britain, the most dramatic formal act of damaging the nation state has been our membership of the EU. But that is only one of a number of serious attacks on the British state and people. The permitting of mass immigration is a profound form of treason, for mass immigration is a form of conquest. North America is now dominated by the white man because of a slow accretion of settlement not through sudden and violent conquest. To that treason is linked its sister act, the attempted cultural cleansing of the native population of Britain in general and the English in particular, through the wilful denigration of the native population of this country, the deliberate denial to them of their history in our schools and the suppression of dissent through the power of the state, willingly assisted by the mass media.

To those may be added these others which are patently against our interests. Entering into treaties which remove freedom of action from the country, for example those governing membership of the World Trade Organisation. The failure to maintain the country’s military capacity and the use of what military we have in foreign adventures in which Britain has no natural interest. The deliberate refusal to ensure that the country’s economic capacity can supply all essential items in time of emergency, in particular the securing of the food supplies. The spending of taxpayers’ money on foreign peoples. All these treasons, and those of the preceding paragraphs, apply to a lesser or greater degree throughout the First World.

Our own time has brought a new problem of definition to treason. The elite ideology of the moment is Liberal Internationalism. This might seem to be a direct challenge to the very idea of treason, for where neither the primacy of the nation nor the authority of a sovereign is recognised, against whom is treason committed? The answer is that for the Liberal Internationalist, treason is any dissent from his ideology. Treason has put on totalitarian clothes.

Unfortunately, the Liberal Internationalist propaganda has been so successful that treason has an old fashioned ring to the modern Briton. It is mocked along with the very idea of patriotism. So long have the British been at peace, so safe does everyday life seem, so ruthlessly have the liberal elite and their educational and media nomenclatura promoted the idea that the time of the nation state is passed, that even naturally patriotic Britons find the idea of treason an uncomfortable one.

That is a mortally dangerous because a belief that treason may be committed is vitally important if we wish to maintain our independence. It is so because the nation state requires a concept of treason as a foundation of its integrity. We desperately need to understand the nature of treason and act upon it for our own protection.

Being arrested in England is no small matter anymore

Robert Henderson

There was a time when being arrested in England did not matter very much. Before digital technology came of age your fingerprints and mug shot might be taken, but if no charges were laid or, if you were brought to trial, a conviction was not obtained for the alleged offence which had caused your arrest, the chances of the ordinary law abiding person being inconvenienced in the future by the fact that those details were held by the police were small. There was no Police National Computer (PNC) until 1974 – which was a very rudimentary system in the beginning and for a long period of time afterwards laughably underpowered with what we have now – and the widespread use of personal computers was almost two decades after that. DNA identification did not come into play until the 1980s and was very cumbersome procedure for years afterwards. Before computers arrived police had to rely on their knowledge of the “usual suspects”, modus operandi and informers to hunt down the guilty. They would look at the records of those suggested by such avenues of inquiry, but had no ready way of searching large numbers of records on spec or of moving their search to the records of other police forces. On spec searches of criminal records for the entire country were out of the question.

Today not only are fingerprints and mug shots taken but DNA samples as well if some is arrested on suspicion of committing a recordable offence (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1139/contents/made). Prior to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/section/82) fingerprints and DNA samples would be destroyed if someone was not found guilty. After the 2001 Act samples could be taken without the permission of the suspect at the time of charge. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44) allowed samples to be taken on arrest for a recordable offence. Presently, all records are held indefinitely on the PNC, a database which holds records for the entire country and can be accessed by any police force in the country. Currently, the data is held indefinitely regardless of whether an arrested person is convicted, tried and found not guilty or released without charge. There is the Protection of Freedoms Bill which is still going through Parliament which places some restrictions on the holding of data of those not convicted of a crime, but even if these become law –and they could be amended before the Bill is passed – these still allow considerable opportunity for the storage of fingerprints, DNA and mug shots of the unconvicted, viz:

Protection of Freedoms Bill proposals

The following details relate to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, introduced on the 7 February 2011. As this has not yet been agreed by Parliament, these proposals are subject to change.

What if I am arrested for a minor offence, but not charged or convicted?

The provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that in the future these will not be retained at all.

What if I am arrested for, but not charged with a serious offence?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that the police will only be permitted to retain DNA and fingerprints in very tightly controlled circumstances. We will be establishing an independent commissioner to oversee DNA retention and they will make a decision whether retention is necessary, taking into account the age and vulnerability of victim of the alleged offence and their relation to the person arrested.

What if I am arrested for and charged with a serious offence, but not convicted?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that in these cases we propose to retain the DNA and fingerprints for three years, with the option of a single two-year extension by a court.

What if I am convicted of an offence?

The provisions of the Protection Of Freedoms Bill as introduced in Parliament provide that all adults convicted of any recordable offence will have their DNA and fingerprints retained indefinitely.

We are proposing a separate retention regime for those under 18 years of age who are convicted of an offence. Those convicted of a serious offence will have their DNA and fingerprints retained indefinitely. For those under 18 who are convicted of a minor offence their DNA will be retained for five years on a first conviction (plus the length of any custodial sentence) and then indefinitely following a second conviction. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/dna-and-fingerprints/)

DNA is especially important, because unlike fingerprints it can be readily deposited by someone else at the scene of a crime or inadvertently picked up by someone committing a crime or by the victim of a crime. In principle this could also happen with fingerprints if someone deliberately or inadvertently picks up something with someone’s fingerprints on it and leaves it at the scene of a crime or a victim does so inadvertently. But the scope for framing someone in that fashion is much less than it would be for DNA because of the difficulty in both obtaining and retaining a clear print inadvertently or leaving something with a clear print on it which could be plausibly seen by the police as being left inadvertently.

Fingerprints obtained in the messy real world encountered by the police are generally a far from certain identifier because of their incompleteness . Even where a clear whole print is available, the identification is not absolutely watertight, not least because the scientific basis of the system has been questioned successfully enough to prevent fingerprint evidence being used in trials in the USA, viz: “U.S. District Court Judge Louis H. Pollak last week ruled that such evidence does not meet standards of scientific scrutiny established by the U.S. Supreme Court, and said fingerprint examiners cannot testify at trial that a suspect’s fingerprints “match” those found at a crime scene. “ (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91996&page=1#.UHVvghVZWSo).

It is worth adding that justice systems around the world accept different numbers of “points of similarity” in fingerprint evidence as indicative of a positive match. It is all very messy and unavoidably subjective to a significant degree.

DNA is a different matter, or at least is thought to be a different matter. DNA identification is based not on the subjective judgement of visible differences by humans, but the machine matching of strings of DNA code. This gives them an appearance of scientific rigour. However DNA may be degraded or mixed with someone else’s DNA which can make identification far from certain. Identification is also debatable with the controversial “low copy number” DNA testing which deals with minute samples of DNA (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id190.html) Moreover, there will always be false positives. The likelihood of those is strong when a database holds millions of individual DNA samples. The numbers would be small but for those involved the results would be traumatic even if no conviction results. The worst case would be a false conviction for a serious crime.

Apart from false positives, there are three ways an innocent man or woman could fall victim to an police investigation based on the DNA. The first is it could have been planted deliberately by someone. This could have been done to either harm the person whose DNA was planted or it might have been an attempt to mislead the police by someone committing a crime. In the latter case the person whose DNA was planted need not have been known to the person doing the planting. They simply pick up something like a cigarette butt or a used tissue which they have either seen someone leave or they simply find after the person has deposited the item and gone.

The second circumstance would be if someone is the victim of a crime and they inadvertently pick up something carrying DNA , for example a lost hair or blood left by someone. A truly disturbing and astonishing example of what can happen involved Mark Minick. Minick was arrested on suspicion of rape. He had a criminal record for robbery and his DNA matched that taken from a hair found on the victim. The problem was that Minick is white and small (5’6”) and the victim identified her attacker as black and large. Notwithstanding this, the CPS proceeded with the case which was only dropped at the first court hearing where the prosecution offered no evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512980/DNA-farce-My-nightmare-white-man-charged-hunt-black-rapist.html#ixzz28ooimkcD). How did the victim have a hair of Minick’s? He was working as a porter at the hospital at which the girl was treated. Most probably she picked up the hair there. Minick’s case shows emphatically how powerful a grip DNA evidence has on the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): they were both willing to ignore the fact that the victim had identified her attacker as large and black while Minick was small and white because they had a DNA match from a source which could have come innocently and inadvertently into the victim’s possession.

The third opportunity for gratuitous involvement in a police investigation would be the use of near DNA matches as a pointer to who might be involved in a crime. Suppose someone, most probably a near relative, has their DNA on the PNC. The police may investigate the close relatives of that person in connection with a crime, regardless of whether the relatives have a criminal record or there is any evidence that they might be guilty. (section 5 http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/NationalDNADatabase.pdf). Even if nothing happens beyond an investigation this is a considerable intrusion into their lives. Moreover, even if completely, innocent human nature being what it is, others who know of the police involvement may conclude there is no smoke without fire. Nor, as the Minick case showed, can there be any rational belief that the police and CPS will not allow DNA evidence to drive investigations and prosecutions where there is no other strong evidence of guilt.

The fact that even under the reforms proposed in the Protection of Freedoms Bill considerable numbers of people who have never been convicted of or even charged with a criminal offence will remain for years on the PNC means that tens of thousands of people at least will potentially become suspects in future investigations for anything up to five years despite having a clean bill of legal health. If the Protection of Freedom Act is not retrospective when it is passed , that is, it only applies to new arrests, then the numbers the innocent people involved could be millions. To penalise the innocent is unjust and immoral because it is based on the unethical idea that the greater good of the greater number is reason enough to mistreat individuals. If only the DNA and fingerprints of the convicted were held the risks of gratuitous police investigations of the innocent would be greatly reduced.

Nor is the injustice restricted to those with a clean criminal record. The DNA and Fingerprints of anyone convicted of a recordable crime will be held indefinitely. That means people who have committed minor offences such as common assault or driving without due care and attention without causing an accident (often only once in their lives) will be subject to the same risk of further gratuitous investigation based on false positives and so on as those with no convictions who remain on the PNC. This is disproportionate.

Here is a question which I have never seen publicly posed: why are fingerprints and DNA taken from every person arrested regardless of the suspected crime? It is easy to see that they might be useful in the case of criminals such as murderers, burglars and rapists, but what purpose does it serve for people such as fraudsters and those convicted of dangerous driving? It is very improbable that fingerprints or DNA records will be useful in solving future crimes by people who are convicted of fraud or driving offences if they commit similar offences. It is also a fact that most people, including career criminals, tend to commit the same type of crime if they commit more than one. There is a strong civil liberties case for saying fingerprints and DNA ( or any other future biometrics identifier) should only be taken where they are likely to help solve a crime or series of crimes. If that practice was followed it would also greatly reduce the likelihood of people being harassed unnecessarily by the police.

There is also a broader question of the keeping of data other than fingerprints and DNA, for example, notes of unsubstantiated complaints of crime or even reports of behaviour which might be considered suspicious. These can have profound effects on lives because Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks are now required by huge numbers of adults for the purpose of gaining employment or taking part in voluntary activities – the requirements have even been ludicrously extended to parents watching their children take part in school sports or Nativity plays (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210724/Parents-criminal-record-checks-banned-watching-kids-play-school-sport.html).

CRB checks are of two kinds :

•standard CRB check – for certain specified jobs, licences and entry into certain professions

•enhanced CRB check – for those carrying out certain activities or working in regulated activity with children or adults; applicants for gaming and lottery licences; and judicial appointments…

What you’ll find on a criminal record check

Standard CRB checks will contain details of all spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings from the Police National Computer (PNC).

The enhanced CRB check will include any information from the PNC and may also search:

•information held by local police forces

•lists of people barred from working with children and adults which are kept by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Startinganewjob/DG_195809)

Millions of innocent people could find themselves barred from employment or voluntary activities through no fault of their own. Not only that, where a CRB check is failed, unsubstantiated or simply wrong highly damaging information held by the police will be in the hands of people who know the person who has failed the check and knowledge of a failure to pass a check, even if the details of the failure are not known, will cast doubt over the integrity of the person who has failed the check.

Police records are just part of an ever expanding portfolio of state and private enterprise databases which can affect lives, frequently without the individual even knowing. But police records and the ever swelling reach of the CRB check are by far the most intrusive and controlling of the surveillance apparatus which exists at present in England. They need to be severely controlled.

As a bare minimum we should return to position that no person’s DNA and Fingerprints should be retained if they remain unconvicted and there should be no record kept of their arrests, charges or trials on the national database. The removal of all records of investigations from the national computer is necessary because otherwise innocent people may still be unreasonably investigated simply because they have been arrested, charged or tried but found innocent for a similar crime before.

More broadly, it is pernicious to have information which the police have received which may not even have led to an arrest or any, indeed, contact with the police being disclosed on CRB checks. They should reveal only convictions and arguably only convictions relevant to job for which the check is made. If someone has, for example, if someone has been convicted of driving without due care and attention when they were 17 and is applying for a teaching job when they are 35 the conviction is scarcely relevant. In fact, there is a good case for doing away with CRB checks, because there is no evidence they have reduced the type of offences they are meant to reduce, most particularly child abuse of one form or another. Their main effects have been to dissuade many people from engaging in voluntary work, increased costs for organisations (especially schools) and creating a general and unhealthy climate of suspicion in Britain.

These authoritarian policies will become ever harder to remove the longer they remain in place and technology improvements make the temptation to expand the surveillance through an ever expanding menu of biometrics irresistible to those with power. We need to act now.

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 3

Robert Henderson

Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3^rd January. She will stand trial on two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court – Croydon Crown Court – on 17 February 2012.

The charge with “intent to cause fear “ arises because a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, claims Miss West hit her left shoulder with a closed fist. This charge comes under section 31A of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31). It carries a potential sentence on conviction on indictment of “ imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both”.

Anyone who has watched the video on YouTube will think the idea that she intended to cause fear when she was a white woman surrounded by hostile ethnic minorities laughable. ” The CPS are clearly playing the pc game by hitting her with the most severe charges possible. (The official line on what is a racially aggravated offence can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/).

Miss West has yet to plead, but the fact that she has opted for a Crown Court trial (which will mean the case is heard before a jury) rather than a hearing in a magistrates court strongly suggests she will plead not guilty ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/woman-accused-tram-race-rant). This is because she risks a heavier sentence in the Crown Court and it would make little sense to opt for the case to be heard in the Crown Court if she does not intend to plead not guilty. There is of course the danger that she may be intimidated into pleading guilty by the promise of a lighter sentence.

Her bail conditions are that ” she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps at her home address and does not comment on the case. ” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046).

Bearing in mind that Miss West was remanded in custody against her will for “her own safety” , it does seem rather rum that the same court is insisting she stays in her own house when her address was read out in court.

The ban on travel on the local tram system could be pretty penal because she has two small children and the tram system may be the only means she has of taking them with her when she has to leave her house.

Her blanket gagging so she cannot comment on the case is remarkable. Engaging in any of the following can breach the sub judice rules and constitute contempt of court:

1. obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;

2. filming or recording within court buildings;

3. making payments to witnesses;

4. publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;

5. reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;

6. mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;

7. reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;

8. breaching an injunction obtained against another party;

9. anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or

10. revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences. (http://www.out-law.com/page-9742)

Only 4, 6, 7, 8 would seem to have any application in the context of banning her from commenting on the case. Number 9 might seem to have relevance, but by pleading one way or the other the outcome of a case is anticipated. It would be absurd if it applied to a defendant.

Nos 4,6, 7,8 could have been dealt with by banning those specific acts, although it is unlikely she would be in a position to do these things. For example, it is wildly improbable she could mount an organised campaign to influence proceedings. It is also true that cases can be discussed while a case is active in the context of a discussion of public affairs, for example, it would be acceptable to discuss Miss West’s case as part of an examination of how the justice system treats the treatment of black on white offences compared with white on black offences.

What does her general gagging tell us? Simple. The liberal elite are truly terrified that the politically correct house of cards they have built will be blown over if any of the vast resentment and anger at mass immigration and its consequences within the native British population is allowed into the public fold.

The 2011 British riots and the white liberal’s great lie

Robert Henderson

“These riots were not about race: the perpetrators and the victims were white, black and Asian.

“These riots were not about government cuts: they were directed at high street stores, not Parliament.

“And these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.

“No, this was about behaviour…

“…people showing indifference to right and wrong…

“…people with a twisted moral code…

“…people with a complete absence of self-restraint….

“We must fight back against the attitudes and assumptions that have brought parts of our society to this shocking state.

“We know what’s gone wrong: the question is, do we have the determination to put it right?

Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?

“Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.

“Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort.

“ Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control…..

“Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised….

“So yes, the broken society is back at the top of my agenda.” David Cameron on 15 August 2011 (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2011/08/cameron-post-riots-speech-in-full.html)

Cameron’s words epitomise one half of the British elite’s reaction to the recent riots which began in Tottenham north London, then spread to other parts of London and its environs and other English cities: Birmingham, Wolverhampton, West Bromwich Bristol, Gloucester, Liverpool and Manchester. This side of the elite argument attributed the riots to a racially undifferentiated, morally bereft underclass who did not know right from wrong.

The obvious question to ask Cameron is this: if there was no racial element to the riots why did you feel the need to say it did not exist? The answer is wonderfully simple: Cameron was desperate to avoid addressing the subject which most terrifies British politicians, namely, the disproportionately frequent anti-social behaviour of blacks, and sought refuge in the “All races are in this together” lie to obviate the need to acknowledge that the riots were not the consequence of an underclass but of a particular racial group.

The problem with this explanation is that it was all too clear to the general public, from the voluminous mainstream media coverage and private videos posted on media hosting sites, that the overwhelming majority of rioters were black. In addition, people could not help noticing that all the riots took place in areas with a large black population or in areas close to a large black population. Consequently, no significant disturbances took place outside of English cities and towns because the overwhelming majority of blacks in the UK live in England. The SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alec Salmond inadvertently drew attention to this fact by complaining that “ it was unfair of broadcasters to describe the lawlessness as “UK riots” because it was an English phenomenon and Scotland has “no history of this sort of disorder”. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/8693806/UK-riots-Alex-Salmond-accused-of-gloating-over-English-violence.html). Unsurprising as Scotland has few blacks.

The other half of the British elite’s reaction (from the unreconstructed liberal left) was to ascribe the riots to material and social deprivation. Some like the one-time London mayor Ken Livingstone were nakedly political with their claims that the riots were a consequence of the Coalition Government’s public spending cuts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8687484/Ken-Livingstone-blames-Tottenham-riot-on-spending-cuts.html). Others, like the leader of the Labour Party Ed Milliband , wanted to have their cake and eat it by condemning the riots as inexcusable , then weasel wording their way to the environment explanation by implying that social circumstances were behind the riots as in Miliband’s “Of course these are acts of individual criminality. But we have a duty to ask ourselves why there are people who feel they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from wanton vandalism and looting.” (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/08/11/ed-miliband-riot-statement-in-full). The supposedly political neutral heir to the throne, Prince Charles, even managed to interpret the riots as “a cry for help” (http://news.sky.com/home/article/16051601).

The restriction of the riots to areas with or near to large black populations and the visible evidence of the massive black involvement amongst the rioters and looters make both Cameron’s argument (that this was criminality which was race-blind) and the left liberal argument (that it was down to social deprivation) ridiculous. If there was no racial context why were blacks (who only form two or three per cent of the UK’s population) so prominent and whites (who comprise over 90 per cent of the population) so sparse on the ground? Why did areas without any substantial black population in them or nearby not suffer riots? Why did poor white areas not riot? Clearly, being poor was not a sufficient reason for rioting and looting, while being black in an area with a large number of blacks was the most obvious and reliable indicator of who would riot and where riots would occur.

How black were the riots?

The Ministry of Justice has produced a detailed analysis by age, sex and criminal record of the rioters brought before the courts by 12 September but no analysis by race or ethnicity. They promise a further report in October which will “ cover wider socio-economic and demographic characteristics, including ethnicity .” (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin.pdf). Whether this will deal honestly with the racial and ethnic make up of the rioters is questionable because British officialdom have a very poor record of supplying crime statistics by race where to do so would raise awkward questions about the greater ethnic minority propensity to engage in crime, especially violent crime. Several years ago I put in a Freedom of Information request requesting a breakdown by race of murders,
manslaughter, serious physical assaults and rapes in the UK. Despite the obsessive collection of race and ethnicity by modern British Governments, I was told that no national statistics were kept of the race of such offenders and all they could supply were incomplete statistics from a few areas in England and Wales.

Judging from the video and still photo evidence available online, the vast majority of those rioting were black. Those breaking into shops were startlingly monochrome. Despite viewing over several dozen videos, I cannot find a single recording of any mass assault on a building to cause an initial break in which is anything other than either entirely or almost entirely
black. Here are a few samples of riot scenes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8r8I7ApDQ Tottenham London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aneS6S5UZw&feature=related Peckham London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuqLLrXYfLY&feature=related Woolwich London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GxUnVYqp1c&feature=related Hackney London

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ1NLhlNdyM Croydon

I made an analysis of the names of 282 rioters in the first batch of those brought before the courts. These were very suggestive of an overwhelming black involvement in the riots, both by the names themselves and in the context of the rioters being (1) overwhelmingly black as anyone can see from the TV coverage and (2) the riots taking place in areas which either have a large black population, for example, Tottenham, or are close to an area with a large black population, for example, Enfield. The context is important because, for example, a Biblical name like Samuel or Aaron might be possessed by someone black or white in the population at large , but would be likely to be owned by a black in an area with a large black population. The analysis can be found at http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/the-racial-and-ethnic-make-up-of-the-august-2011-uk-rioters-by-group/

The small minority of whites who appear in the still photo and video coverage seem to be “walk by looters”, that is they loot only after coming on the scene following the breaching of shops by black mobs. This perception is supported by those whites who have come before the courts so far, the overwhelming majority having been charged with theft rather than burglary on criminal damage. Interestingly, many of the most prominent white defendants have been people who have not taken part in the riots. Instead they are charged with putting messages on social media inciting riots or those who have received goods stolen in the riots. The most dramatic example of heavy penalties for whites not involved in rioting or looting was the jailing for four years of Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan for unsuccessfully attempting to incite a riot in Northwich, Cheshire (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8705212/Facebook-riot-inciters-among-those-to-get-toughest-jail-terms-yet.html). Also, many of the whites seen in videos of the riots appear to be no more than bystanders who take no part in the rioting and looting but either look on or are simply caught up in a sudden outbreak of rioting or looting.

Why did any whites join in? There will be an element of criminals seeing an opportunity. There is also the old Adam in man. If white children and young adults see blacks getting away with behaving badly they will be tempted to do it themselves. But although whites may be sucked in when living in areas with black rioters, their numbers are tny in comparison with blacks, a fact made all the more impressive when the proportion of the population who are white (over 80%) is taken into account.

Whether the eventual toll of convictions will be an accurate representation of the rioters is debatable because it will be difficult to identify those wearing hoods, balaclavas or other things which mask their faces and CCTV, especially when the light in failing or night has fallen, is often of little use in identification. There must also be doubts about whether the police will go after the hardest targets such as large black gangs or blacks who are known as being very violent with the same enthusiasm as they would a white “pass-by” looter acting own their own or whites who have posted inciting messages on Facebook or received stolen goods. That brings me to the question of the British police and their attitude to policing ethnic minorities in general and blacks in particular.

Why the policing of the riots was supine

The riots began in a part of London (Tottenham) which has both a large black population and a history of black rioting from the 1980s when a white policeman PC Keith Blakelock was most brutally murdered by being almost decapitated with a machete by one or more blacks. The recent Tottenham riot was also comprised overwhelmingly of black rioters. The police failed to meaningfully police the 2011 riot by standing off while rioters smashed, looted and burned. Media reports, especially the TV coverage, made it clear that rioters could proceed unmolested by the police. That encouraged other people in different places, to riot, something made easy by modern technology which permitted “flash mob” tactics to be used to assemble rioters at short notice anywhere. The police continued to stand off in these places, a particularly glaring example occurred in Croydon, giving yet more encouragement to others to riot.

Why did the police stand off? The official explanation to begin with was that there were too few police officers available trained in riot control to make active intervention practical at the time of the Tottenham riot. This line became increasingly difficult to take seriously as massive numbers of police were drafted into London and the rioters still went largely unmolested and riots in other cities and towns also showed signs of reluctance on the part of the police to intervene. Other official excuses were made along the lines that the police were containing the trouble by fencing off areas and driving rioters out of areas in which they were rioting rather than intervening because this was the most effective way of dealing with serious public disorder. I rather suspect that those who had their homes and businesses destroyed will have a different view. It is also more than a little absurd to say that arson on the scale witnessed in places such as Croydon was worth tolerating for fear of worse because those were crimes which potentially could have killed many.

The police also played heavily on their ability to bring to justice the rioters using CCTV and other video evidence. The flaws in this argument are obvious. Much CCTV material is of poor quality. The rioting tended to be in evening making CCTV visibility even more of a problem. Anyone masking their face almost certainly avoids detection unless there is some other pointer to who they are such as being part of a gang known to the police which loots and some of the gang members not cover their faces .

The real reason for the failure of the police to act was the fact that the rioters and looters were overwhelmingly black. Over the past 30 years the modern British police and especially those in London, have been reduced to a state of near inertia when dealing with blacks breaking the law, especially when confronted with large groups of blacks doing so.

The process of police emasculation began with the Scarman Report which was commissioned after the 1981 Brixton riots. This argued for police engagement (community policing) with black populations in heavily settled black areas and, where riots occurred, for the police to contain the violence within an area rather than actively seeking to end it by physical action against the rioters. So started the long march towards the present situation whereby the police are rigid with political correctness and terrified of acting against ethnic minorities for fear of being accused of racism.

How far things have changed can be seen from the difference between the Scarman and Macpherson reports. The Scarman Report had no difficulty in making a severe judgement of blacks: “Without close parental support, with no job to go to, and with few recreational facilities available the young Black person makes his life the streets and the seedy, commercially-run clubs of Brixton. There he meets criminals, who appear to have no difficulty obtaining the benefits of a materialist society.” (Beckford, Robert (2006). Jesus dub: theology, music and social change. Routledge. pp. 46–47. ISBN 9780415310192).

The Macpherson Report (1999) into the killing of a young Nigerian boy Damilola Taylor drove the single biggest wedge between the effective policing of ethnic minorities and what the police were prepared to do. Macpherson called the Metropolitan Police “institutionally racist” and made a series of recommendations which severely hamstrung the police (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm.) These included this astonishing definition of what constituted a racially motivated crime: “A racist
incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”. The eventual upshot was the acceptance of the accusation “institutionally racist” by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the adoption of Macpherson’s recommendations by the Met with other police forces in Britain clambering on the politically correct bandwagon afterwards.

The consequence of 25 years of the police increasingly treating blacks with kid gloves is the creation of a mentality amongst blacks that if they act in numbers it is highly unlikely that the police will intervene. The extent to which the police have become paralysed was coincidentally graphically shown in a photograph taken at the Notting Hill Carnival in West London which took place not long after the recent riots. A black man stabbed someone then ran away with the knife in his hand while two white policemen, who were within touching distance as he passed, made no attempt to arrest him (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8730016/Knife-wielding-man-pictured-running-from-scene-of-Notting-Hill-Carnival-stabbing.html).

The myth of a racially undifferentiated underclass

Ironically, Cameron unwittingly put his finger on the cause f the riots with his impolitic comments about an amoral and uncontrolled group wich has no sense of a general social responsibility. What he failed to to was identify the personnel of that group, namely, the part of the black population which is responsible for so much violent criminal mayhem in England and the circumstances of the wider black population from which the criminals come. Although not all blacks are criminally inclined, the active black criminal’s behaviour is a toxic distillation of the predominant black mentality of suspicion and grievance which drives them to constantly look for “discrimination” and “racism” from whites and provides an excuse in black minds for misbehaviour.

Criminally inclined blacks are not an underclass in the sense of being a social class, but people who see themselves as separate from British society, a society which they view as oppressive of them. The sense of separateness is widely shared by blacks generally. The natural sense of victimhood and paranoia which is evident in any minority group to some degree has been fed voraciously by white liberals who have told them that slavery and colonialism has left them with a justified grievance against British society despite the fact that the generations living now are five or six generations from slavery and two from the Empire (the British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery within the Empire in 1834 while British decolonisation effectively ended by 1970). The black rioters have doubtless readily seized upon the idea that they are consequently entitled to riot and loot and that their “prizes” are somehow reparations for historical white sins.

This masochistic pandering by white liberals to black victimhood has persuaded many blacks in Britain that they do not owe any moral obligation to wider society and as a consequence they believe they may behave as they choose within their own group and with complete amorality to those outside the group. That is the social problem which needs to be addressed, not the +reformation of a mythical racially undifferentiated underclass.

Blacks and violent crimes go together

One person in the media who did raise the question of race in connection with the riots was a mixed race teacher Katharine Birbalsingh who had the shocking bad taste (from the white liberal point of view) of pointing out that the media were ignoring the very obvious racial context of the riots (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/). In the same piece she also dealt with the reality of black violence in London:

“At school I remember watching a presentation given to the kids by Trident, the Metropolitan Police Service unit set up to investigate and inform communities of gun crime in London’s black community. I didn’t know what Trident was then, and it struck me that all of the photos of people shot (the idea was to scare the kids) were black. So at the end, I approached one of the policemen and asked him what percentage of those involved in gun crime were black. I kid you not, but my question made this thirty-something white man who was, after all, trained to deal with the black community and its issues, turn pink.

“He explained that about 80 per cent of gun crime took place in the black community. I smiled uncomfortably. But no, he said, it was worse than that. Then he told me that 80 per cent was black on black gun crime, and that of the remaining 20 per cent about 75 per cent involved at least one black person: black shooting white, or white shooting black. I pushed to know more. While he kept saying his stats were crude and he didn’t have scientific numbers, on the whole the whites who were involved in these shootings tended to be from Eastern Europe.”

There should be no surprise at that anecdote nor the fact that the riots were black led and inspired. Not only do blacks have a history of rioting in England, they have a much greater general propensity for crime, and especially violent crime, than the general population. According to the report Equality and Human Rights Commission’s 2010 report How Fair Is Britain? “On average, five times more Black people [related to their proportion of the UK population] than White people are imprisoned in England and Wales, where 1 in 4 people in prison is from an ethnic minority background” and “ Ethnic minorities were the victims of around a quarter of homicides recorded in England and Wales between 2006/07 and 2008/09: just over half of these ethnic minority victims were Black. ” (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/tr_execsumm.pdf). It is scarcely to be wondered at that so many blacks are victims of killings because black-on-black murders are so frequent in London that the Metropolitan Police has a squad named Operation Trident specifically devoted to black-on-black guncrime. (http://www.met.police.uk/scd/specialist_units/trident_trafalgar.htm).

Muggings and rapes (especially gang rapes) are also black favourites , viz:

“A study published yesterday by the Home Office shows that up to 87 per cent of victims in Lambeth, South London, told the police that their attackers were black. Nearly 80 per cent of he victims were white. Black people account for 31 per cent of the population in these areas. “(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article810556.ece)

And

“One of the few police forces to have begun recording the figures of reported gang rape is the Metropolitan Police. In 2008 alone, they received reports of 85 gang rapes. Using the Met’s definition of gang rape – those involving three or more perpetrators – we began to look at the number of convictions. We tracked down 29 cases, from January 2006 to March 2009, in which a total of 92 young people were convicted of involvement in gang rape.

“One fact stood out. Of those convicted, 66 were black or mixed race, 13 were white and the remainder were from other countries including Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gang-rape-is-it-a-race-issue-1711381.html).

People who have on average a much greater propensity for violent criminality are much more likely to engage in acts such as rioting and looting because they have already broken the taboos of being violent and breaking the law. It is also true that when someone has a criminal record they have less to lose if they add to it. Blacks, and young black males in particular, are much more likely to have a criminal record than those of either whites or Asians. For that reason alone blacks will be more prone to joining in violent disorder and theft. In that context it is interesting to consider the previous criminal records of those brought before the courts by early September:

“- 68 per cent of adult males who have been brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction compared to 28 per cent of males aged 18-52 in the population as a whole who have at least one previous conviction – 40 per cent of males aged 10-17 brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction. This compares with 2 per cent of the 10- 17 year old male population who have at least one previous conviction.” (p5 http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin.pdf).

This has to be treated with some caution because most were arrested from video evidence after the event and that will inevitably lead to those already known to the police being charged in greater numbers than those without a criminal record. Nonetheless, the large difference suggests that there was a much greater propensity for criminality amongst the rioters than within the UK population. It is also true the objection of disproportionate arresting of those with convictions applies to the public at large, because police commonly solve crimes by targeting those already known to them. As blacks are much more likely to have criminal records than the population as a whole and the riots took place in areas with substantial black populations, it is reasonable to assume that they would figure disproportionately amongst the rioters.

The white liberal’s hatred of his own people

Alongside the British elite’s gross misrepresentation of what was happening ran the deep undercurrent of fear, hatred and contempt within the British elite for the white working class , a mentality which has developed over the past 40 years (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/the-white-working-class-and-the-british-elite/). This could be neatly fitted into the idea that the riots were the consequence of an underclass. The one-time Tory MP turned journalist Matthew Parris provided a good example of the hatred which included the wish-fantasy that the white working class is vanishing:

“What distinguishes (if anything really does) this week’s rioting from the classic and time-honoured English riot is that our underclass is now so small.

“The white working class is disappearing; a black middle class is growing; and the residue – if human beings should ever be called a residue – cannot amount to more than about 1 per cent of our population. They are concentrated in cheerless and decaying pockets, they have no prospects, no education, nothing to lose, and many are socially dysfunctional and barely employable .” ( “After a sunny spring, where did Britain get it so wrong?” – Matthew Parris Times 11 August 2011).

The most interesting thing about that passage is that Parris makes no attempt to talk about a racially neutral underclass, merely a white one. Then there is his bizarre idea that that the white working-class is reduced to “1 per cent of our population”. If Parris sincerely believes this he is in need of psychiatric help. A Guardian survey in 2007 found that not only a majority of the UK population describe themselves as working-class , but the young are more likely to describe themselves as working-class than those who were older . Hence, far from dying out the white working-class is strengthening, viz:

“…the younger the respondent, the less likely they are to consider themselves middle class. Half of all 55- to 64-year-olds claim to be middle class, with just less than half – 48% – identifying as working class. With each drop in age, however, the middle class shrinks, while the working class steadily grows. When you get down to 25- to 34-year-olds – the generation that wears Birkenstocks, drinks lattes and cooks fresh linguini – only just over a third consider themselves middle class, compared with 56% claiming to be working class. For all New Labour’s rhetoric about aspiration and social mobility, and the brisk high-street trade in chandeliers, it is the postwar babyboomers – not the Blair generation – who have realised the middle-class dream.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/20/britishidentity.socialexclusion1). With social mobility shrinking in Britain, the working class is likely to grow further as more and more people become poor.

The elites’ hatred was also seen in the difference in the elite attitude towards ethnic minorities who formed vigilante groups to defend their areas against rioters and white Britons who did the same. The ethnic minority groups were praised uncritically:

“In London at the height of the riots, we saw another clear expression of faith when more than 700 Sikhs lined up to defend their temples from potential arsonists in the suburb of Southall to the west of the capital. The Sikhs have a proud tradition of valuing each human being, male and female, as equal in God’s eyes. Theirs is a religion in which family is paramount.” (A N Wilson –http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2025393/UK-riots-Haroon-Jahan-death-Legacy-society-believes-nothing.html#ixzz1V00FB4DC)

“Some of the most inspiring moments have come when ordinary citizens came out against the thugs. We recall the Turkish and Greek shopkeepers of Dalston and Stoke Newington, who defied police warnings and decided to protect their property with their own fists. “Why should I be a sitting duck? If they come in here, I will bash them,” warned Stella Kallis, the formidable 53-year-old owner of a hardware shop. Ironically, they came to Britain because back in their native Cyprus, Greeks and Turks fought a civil war half a century ago.” (Daniel Johnson – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8695561/The-riots-have-brought-examples-of-real-heroism.html)

But the white groups were treated as beyond the Pale not only by the media, but at the highest political level:

“Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): For the past two nights in my constituency, I have had a very heavy police presence, owing to right-wing extremist groups focusing on Eltham and trying to create unrest and bad feeling between different racial groups. Although we want to support people who are public-spirited and come out to defend their communities, as some of my constituents have done, will the Prime Minister join me in asking those people not to be diverted from their efforts by those extremists who seek to exploit the situation?

“The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman speaks not only for his constituents, but, frankly, for the whole House in deprecating the English Defence League and all it stands for. On its attempt to say that it will somehow help to restore order, I have described some parts of our society as sick, and there is none sicker than the EDL.” (Column 1086 Hansard 11 August 2011 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110811/debtext/110811-0001.htm#1108117000001).

The British media’s idea of balance in reporting the English Defence League (EDL) is nicely shown in a piece by Damian Thompson He begins by describing a YouTube video “which “anti-fascist” campaigners against the English Defence League don’t want you to see. It features a couple of young middle-class supporters of Unite Against Fascism sniggering as one of them describes a “horrible tattooed woman” at a demo being punched in the face “before someone kicks her up the arse”. In the words of Telegraph blogger Brendan O’Neill, these well-bred kids admit that it’s not normally OK to hit women, “but you can make an exception when it comes to female EDL supporters because they aren’t women – they’re dogs”.

All well and good you may think, but Johnson goes on:

‘You might think there’s nothing new in this. The street battles between the Anti-Nazi League and the National Front in the 1970s pitted white middle-class students against white working-class thugs: in both cases there was a sense that the ethnic minorities they were fighting over were almost irrelevant. Actually, the similarities are misleading. The EDL isn’t the
National Front or even the British National Party. It’s not a fascist party, more of an angry white rentamob. And the racism is different, too: not so much about colour, more about culture.’ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100105484/is-the-edl-the-new-voice-of-the-white-working-class/

So there you have it, the EDL are not Fascist, but they are racist and in Thompson’s eyes best described as “an angry white rentamob. The man is completely oblivious to the fact that the EDL is an entirely natural response by those whose territory has been invaded by the incontinent mass immigration of the post-war period. He also misses the fact that the EDL work
within the confines of politically correctness by emphasising their non-racial membership.

Perhaps the most ingenious attempt to square the “all races are in it together” lie with the fact of large scale black rioting came from the historian David Starkey. He claimed on BBC2’s Newsnight that the riots were multiracial events but monocultural because the white rioters had become culturally “black” . Speaking to fellow guest Owen Jones, who wrote Chavs: the Demonisation of the Working Classes, Starkey said: “What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black…What has happened is that a substantial section of the chavs that you wrote about have become black.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black).

Unfortunately for Starkey he had begun his explanation by referring to Enoch Powell in terms which fell short of the unreserved condemnation required by the liberal intelligentsia. This put him on the back foot from the start, but it did not really make that much of a difference in the end because his argument was confused and questionable in terms of factual accuracy.

The confusion in his argument is his claim that the black culture adopted by whites is a particular type of black culture: lawless, amoral and violent. The problem is he did not describe what other types of black culture in Britain there might be. Worse, when pressed on what he meant during the Newsnight programme, Starkey cited the case of the black Labour MP David Lammy as an example of a more desirable black because if you heard his voice without knowing he was black you would not know Lammy is black because he sounded English. Starkey was implying that only by thoroughly assimilating would blacks become other than the feral variety which he had described.

As for factual accuracy, I have long been puzzled by the claim that large numbers of white children have adopted black mores including speaking in a mock-Jamaican patois. It is true that if you put a child in social circumstances where they are in the ethnic or racial minority they will naturally tend to adopt the manners and speech of the majority, at least when they are with members of the dominant group. Against that I have lived and worked in parts of London with large black populations for over forty years and it is not a common affectation in my experience. Where it exists I suspect that it is no more real than the fictional posturings of Ali G or those of the real-life white , very middle class, son-of-a-bishop DJ Tim Westwood(Ali G is by far the more believable creation).

It also worth noting Starkey’s contempt for his own people. He has no hesitation is speaking of a white underclass and accepting the highly abusive term chav. He also omits Asians and immigrant whites from the rioting picture.

Some white media commentators such as Leo Mckinstry did stand against the general liberal consensus “when it comes to criminality they[left liberals] indulge in the most grotesque double-standards, refusing to demand the same standards of conduct from ethnic minorities that they expect from white people.” (http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/263582), but they were few and far between.

The disconnected British Elite

The behaviour of the British elite – politicians, the mass media and social commentators – has been both sinister and absurd. Everyone who is not blind will have seen the TV coverage showing the dominant role played by blacks; everyone who lives in the cities and towns involved will know that the areas affected are heavily populated by blacks. Yet the British elite in a manner evoking 1984 call black white and insist that what people see, read and hear is not reality and that reality is the liberal multiculturalist fantasy they retail incessantly. This fantasy
in theory allows no distinction to be made on grounds of race or ethnicity, but in practice it is only applied where it is to the benefit of ethnic minorities.

The desire to avoid acknowledging that race lay at the heart of the riots was the prime reason for the lie, but the disconnection of the British elite from British society in general also played its part. The Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith bleakly demonstrated the divide:

“Writing in the Times newspaper, Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘Too many people have remained unaware of the true nature of life on some of our estates.

“This was because we had ghettoised many of these problems, keeping them out of sight of the middle-class majority. ‘Mr Duncan Smith added that the estates on which the riots took place were blighted by a ‘welfare dependency ‘‘Occasionally some terrible event would make it on to our front pages, but because they were small in number people were able to turn away from the problem.

“‘But last month the inner city finally came to call, and the country was shocked by what it saw.’

“He said it was not possible to ‘arrest our way out of the riots’ and a social response was needed.”
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037574/Iain-Duncan-Smith-The-riots-gave-middle-class-taste-real-world.html#ixzz1YFVv4UDd).

Those words could have been spoken in the 19^thCentury as the haves discussed the problem of the poor as though they were a different species. It is both contemptuous and contemptible.

If these had been largely white riots have no doubt that the British elite’s narrative would have been very different. There would still have been the contemptible talk of a lumpen underclass and feral young men, but it would not have been represented as a racially neutral event. It would have been the “white lumpens underclass” and feral white boys”. The narrative the elite offered was simply an attempt to avoid addressing the fact that these were black riots and by extension the general problem of black misbehaviour.

The immediate ill consequences of the great white liberal lie that there was no racial aspect to the riots are twofold: the white working class and the poor in general will be demonised further and nothing will be done to address the real cause of the riots which is the existence of a large numbers of blacks who have been led to believe that the white British elite will tolerate and excuse black misbehaviour because they are burdened both with the liberal’s self-indulgent white guilt and an ideology (political correctness) which has as its central tenet “anti-racism”, an idea which in practice means looking for discrimination against blacks and Asians by whites or “white society”.

But there is a greater general ill embodied in the lie. The British have been asked by the Government, politicians of all mainstream parties and the vast majority of the mass media to believe that which is obviously untrue. Whether or not the general public believe the lie is largely immaterial, because the public narrative is controlled by the British elite, both through laws and newly engineered social conventions which ensure that no one who tells the truth can hope to be elected to Westminster and by the willingness of the mainstream media to censor views which fall outside the limits permitted by political correctness. (Even where an individual or group manages to breach the censorship they do so by trying, like both the BNP and EDL, to place themselves within the shackles of political correctness by, for example, trying to represent themselves as “non-racist”.) Because the British elite can control the public narrative, the logic of the lie can be followed to produce public policy which is completely at odds with reality because there is no contrary voice or power holder allowed into the decision making. It is the type of situation envisaged in 1984 and which was realised in states such as the Soviet Union where those with power tell obvious lies and the people are helpless to prevent either their telling or the policies which flow from them.

If the real problem was acknowledged – that of a black population with many disaffected and morally disconnected people – what could be done to resolve it? It is doubtful that much could be done in terms of changing black behaviour fundamentally. It is a stark fact that black populations throughout the world, whether they be in the majority or minority, display similar anti-social behaviours: strong tendencies to violence, rape, male desertion of children and women bringing up children by multiple fathers on their own. These behaviours alone are guaranteed to produce widespread criminality and social dysfunction.

If it is difficult to see how such behaviours could be changed, there is also the straightjacket of victimhood – something particularly strong in Britain – to deal with. You cannot persuade people to change deeply embedded behaviours when they have it in their minds that in some way not responsible for their behaviour or, worse, that they are entitled to behave badly as a form of reparation for ancestral wrongs.

The fact that widespread serious anti-social black behaviour is found in so many different societies suggests that there may be a genetic component to it. Blacks have consistently scored poorly at IQ tests compared with other racial groups. They also have on average higher testosterone levels compared with whites and Asians. The British psychologist and the Finnish economist Tatu Vanhanen have calculated that the average IQ of black Africans is 69 (see their IQ and the Wealth of Nations) and Americans blacks (who unlike Africans have a large admixture of white genes) score around 85. Most psychologists working in the area of intelligence testing think that an IQ of 75-80 is the point at which an individual struggles to live an independent life in an advanced modern society. It could be that what is seen as black misbehaviour is either a response to the stress of living in a society which they cannot cope with or is simply behaviour which would be sustainable in a tribal society but is incompatible with more complex societies. I address this question more extensively at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/blacks-the-odd-man-out/.

But if there is an innate tendency for anti-social behaviour and/or an ingrained culture of accepting it as normal or at least tolerable within black populations, that does not mean nothing can be done to control such misbehaviour. Properly enforcing the law against blacks would be a start. Politicians ceasing to pander to ethnic minorities would change the social climate and make it clear to blacks and Asians that they will be judged by the same standards as white Britons. Repealing all the legislation which places ethnic minorities in a de facto privileged position such the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment Act) 2000 would underline that message. Removing all public funding for the promotion or provision of ethnically based ideas or services would signal that the multicultural gravy boat is over. Most powerfully, those with power could end further mass immigration.

Is there any chance of such things happening? Not in our present circumstances, but politics can move very rapidly. Elites have only one settled principle, to do whatever is necessary to maintain their power and privilege. Let public disorder created by ethnic minorities get the point where it frightens those with power and they will change their ideology without blinking.