Category Archives: Politics

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 2

Robert Henderson

Emma West has been remanded in custody until 3rd of January when she will appear at Croydon Crown Court (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tram-race-rant-woman-court-052333359.html).  By 3rd January she will in, effect , have served a custodial sentence of 37 days,  regardless of whether she is found not guilty or found guilty and given a non-custodial question.  37 days is  not far short of being the equivalent of  a three month sentence which, in England,  automatically attracts a 50% remission.  It often takes burglars in England to be convicted three or even more times of burglary before they receive a custodial sentence.

Miss West has also been separated from her children who may well have been taken into care and will have the great trauma of both wondering what is happening to them and whether they may be taken off her by our wondrously politically correct social services.

Bizarrely, Miss West is being held in a category A prison HM Bronzefield  in Middlesex. A Category A prison is the highest security prison and is reserved for “prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security”.  For someone charged with an offence which could have been dealt with in a magistrates court  to be remanded to such a facility  is truly extraordinary.

The court’s excuse that she was being held in protective custody to protect her from attack is both sinister and absurd.  Unless Miss West is kept in solitary confinement,  she will be  in more danger in the prison than she would be on bail because there will be black and Asian prisoners in the prison who will be violent because  any  category A prison will contain such prisoners . If she is being kept in solitary, that would be unreasonable because it will adversely affect her  mental state and be a de facto punishment in itself.   The general Category A regime is also severe . Both the imprisonment of Miss West and the use of a Category A prison suggest a deliberate policy of intimidation by the authorities designed both to undermine her resolution and send a most threatening message to every white Briton.

Compare and contrast her treatment with that of a criminal case which was decided on the same day that Miss West was further remanded. Four Somali Muslim girls  – Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, both 24, their sister Ayan, 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur  28 – viciously attacked a white British girl Rhea Page, 22.  They  were charged with Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH),  having torn part of Miss Page’s  scalp away, knocked her to the ground and repeatedly kicked her, including kicks to the head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p).  Miss Page was left traumatised and lost her job as a result of the lasting effect the attack had on her.

The maximum penalty for  ABH is five years. The judge  Robert Brown sentenced  the attackers to six month suspended sentences plus 150 hours of unpaid community work for all but for Hibo Maxamed, who needs dialysis three times a week for a kidney complaint and  received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am.   The sentence was absurdly light for a serious case of ABH. Indeed, the crime could well have been judged to have been the more serious Grievous Bodily Harm.

Despite the fact that they were screaming white bitch” and “white slag at Miss Page, the attack was not treated as a racially motivated and hence aggravated crime. Had it been treated as racially motivated the sentence would have been more severe.

The judge is reported as saying that he took into account the fact that Miss Page’s partner  Lewis Moore, 23, had used unreasonable force to defend Miss Page.  No details of this “unreasonable force” appear in media reports, but the mind does boggle a bit at what could be considered “unreasonable force” when four girls are savagely attacking a man’s girlfriend .  The judge also made allowances for the fact that the girls had been drinking and had behaved as they did because as Muslims they were unused to alcohol (I am not making this up honest”).

There was an attempt by Nur to claim that Mr Moore had been racially abusive. The prosecution did not accept this. However, let us suppose that he had been racially abusive in such  circumstances could any rational person think it was unreasonable?

The Mail reports  that “After the sentencing, Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: ‘Happy happy happy!’, ‘I’m so going out’, and ‘Today has been such a great day’.” They are under no illusion that they have got away with it.

So there you have it, no jail and the crime is not treated as racially motivated and the culprits effectively put two fingers up to Miss Page. If this was a plot used in a work of fiction it would treated as absurd.  Actually, in the monstrously politically correct world that is modern England the writer of such a plot would almost certainly have been accused of racism.

This type  of grotesque double standards in the treatment of white Britons and blacks,  Asians  or even white immigrants is commonplace.  Another good example occurred when white Christopher Yates was murdered by an Asian gang who were heard to make racist comments  such as “That will teach the white man for interfering in Paki business.”                (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm).  The Judge Martin Stephens  bizarrely did not say the crime was racially aggravated because “Between you that morning, you attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian”, this being based on the evidence that “They racially abused a black resident and then moved on to a curry house where they assaulted an Asian waiter”.  Note that they did not racially abuse the Asian waiter. Moreover,  it is mistaken to lump all Asians under one heading.  The assaulted Asian could have come from a different ethnicity.

Apart from the disparity  in the treatment of  white Britons and ethnic minorities by the law, there is the striking difference in the behaviour of politicians and the mainstream media in reporting allegations of white and allegations of  ethnic minority racism.  An attack by a white assailant on a black or Asian is routinely accepted as racist without any meaningful  proof, the simple fact of it being a white assailant and a black victim being taken as proof enough.  The reverse is the case where the assailant in  black or Asian and the victim is white.  There is also a massive difference in the elite response to white on black and black on white assaults or verbal racial abuse. Politicians and the media  remain very quiet when the alleged racist is black,  but are incontinent in their eagerness to condemn the alleged white malefactor.  The never ending Stephen Lawrence saga is the prime example of the latter behaviour.

A striking fact about Emma West’s case is the limited media coverage and the nature of what exists. There have been press reports but very surprisingly little in the broadcast media and the press coverage is mostly straight reportage of the court hearings  rather than comment.  It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened if a black woman had been treated as Miss West has been treated. The media would be swamped with opinion pieces emphasising the black woman’s struggle against white racism, the historical legacy of slavery, her impoverished circumstances  and so on.

Miss West  has opted for a jury trial rather than being dealt with by the magistrates so presumably she will plead not guilty. The danger is she will be intimidated by her incarceration in a Category A prison , the pressure put  upon her by an army of criminologists, social workers and possibly her own lawyers and, most contemptibly, by  threats that her children will be taken away,  to engage in a Maoist-style public confession of fault , with a plea of guilty and the ghastly stereotyped statement  so common these days read by her lawyer after the conclusion of the case. This would  be along the lines of  how the views do not represent what Miss West actually thinks, says she has many black  and white foreign friends and   attributes her  words on the train to provocation,  stress , drink or  drugs, thus implying that no sane person who was in a normal state of mind could possibly hold such views. Let us pray  that it does not happen.

The message of Emma West’s treatment is simple: Britain’s  ruling elite  are terrified of anyone who will not accept the liberal credo,  because  the liberal’s fantasy multicultural, politically correct society  is only sustainable while no one is allowed to point out that the emperor’s new clothes do not exist.

Miss West’s solicitor is David Ewings . He can  be contacted at David.Ewings@CharterChambers.com

Charter Chambers

33 John Street

London

WC1N 2AT

If you wish to support Miss West you can  write to

Emma West

C/O HMP Bronzefield

Woodthorpe Road

Ashford

Middlesex

TW15 3JZ

 

Stop Press

There are reports circulating on the web that Emma West’s protests against the consequences of mass immigration were sparked by a black passenger spitting near her and her son. I have not seen any mainstream media report of this so for the moment store it away in your mind but treat with caution.

The globalist lies about the British job market

Robert Henderson

One of the great lies of the modern liberal is that in developed countries such as Britain unskilled  and low skilled jobs are a rapidly shrinking commodity.  Daniel Knowles of the Daily Telegraph  was at it  on 17 November with Our greatest social problem: there are no jobs left for the dim (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100118217/our-greatest-social-problem-there-are-no-jobs-left-for-the-dim/).  He tried to explain  away Britain’s growing problem of youth unemployment by arguing that the less bright, less educated British youngsters of  today are unemployed because “Robots and Chinese people have taken over the sorts of jobs that 16 year olds could get without any qualifications straight out of school and work in for a lifetime.  The only jobs left for the under-educated, or often just the less academic, are in service industries: serving coffee, cleaning toilets, stacking shelves. These jobs are not the first rung on the ladder. There is no ladder; no one hopes to work in Pret a Manger for life.”

There are several interesting aspects of Knowles’ comment. First, he assumes that offshoring jobs to places like China is something which cannot be reversed and the practice carries no moral opprobrium.  Second, he makes the assumption that everyone wants a career rather than just a secure job which allows them to live independently. Third, he makes no mention of the role mass immigration has played in creating unemployment amongst the young, something which can only be explained by  Knowles being of the generation which has been brainwashed into pretending that the ill effects  of immigration do not exist.

Knowles’ ideas about the young could be as readily applied to British workers of all ages if one accepts his interpretation of  the state of the labour market.  He is right on the superficial detail that  less well-qualified Britons British workers are increasingly being left without unskilled and low-skilled work, but wrong in understanding of why this is and his implied assumption that Britain’s economic circumstances cannot be changed.

The “we have to live in a globalist world” lie

Britain does not have to be,  in the cant of the globalists,   a post-industrial society.  To begin with Britain still undertakes a good deal of manufacturing, albeit  this has become across too narrow a range of goods.  The base to expand industrial production is still there if only Britain’s politicians forsook the globalist fantasy and concentrated on protecting the domestic British economy,  for example, by having a policy to be self-sufficient in food and energy or by making it illegal to use a call centre outside of Britain to serve Britain.    This would  necessitate  Britain  leaving the EU.   Withdrawal from the EU would also allow Britain to re-establish control over immigration. Turning off the immigrant labour tap  would force British employers to take on native Britons.

Such actions  would place  restrictions on what Britain could sell overseas and lessen  the opportunity for Britons  to work abroad,  but  it would be a case of economic swings and roundabouts . The swings of being an independent judiciously protectionist nation again would most probably exceed greatly exceed the roundabouts of  other nations’ restriction.  This is because the central lesson of economic history is that  a strong domestic economy is  necessary for a country to be economically successful.  It is worth adding that Britons who go to work abroad today  are, unlike the majority of foreigners who come to work here, amongst the better qualified part of the population.  Consequently, any restriction on their ability to emigrate would be to Britain’s advantage.

Being more self-sufficient as a  country also has considerable political advantages. There is less opportunity for  diplomatic bullying, especially of small countries by the powerful. Domestically, the more things which are within the control of  a government the greater the democratic control,  because politicians cannot blame ills on international treaties and circumstances to the same extent.  For example, suppose the controls over British financial sector had remained as they were before the Thatcher government’s relaxations,  the present financial mess would not have touched Britain to anything like the same extent  because lending by British financial institutions would never have got out of hand.

As for people not being prepared to do run-of-the-mill jobs for all of their lives, this is what used to happen routinely and, indeed, many  people  continue to do just that  today.  Nor is this  something restricted to the  unskilled.  Any skilled craftsman – a builder, plumber or carpenter – or someone with a skill such as HGV driving  will do the same basic job all their lives unless they choose to go to another form of employment.  The fact they are skilled does not necessarily  make the job intrinsically  interesting , although it will be better paid generally than those in a low or unskilled employment.  It is also a mistake to imagine that skilled jobs which are  non-manual are generally fulfilling or prestigious.  A country solicitor dealing largely with farm leases and conveyancing or a an accountant spending most of their time preparing final accounts  are scarcely enjoying working lives  of wild excitement while a The truth is most jobs, regardless of their skill level, are not intrinsically interesting to the people who do them, the interest in working arising from the money reward and the social interaction which comes with the work.

The “there are not enough  low skill jobs”  lie

Nor is it true that unskilled and low-skilled jobs are diminishing.  The large majority of jobs today, require little or no specialised  training.  Very few retail jobs involve a detailed knowledge of the product; driving a vehicle other  than an HGV comes with the possession of an ordinary driving  licence; undertaking a routine clerical task can be done almost immediately by someone who is literate.  Until the advent of general purpose robots which can do most of the jobs a human being can do, there will continue to be a plentiful supply of low-skilled work. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/robotics-and-the-real-sorry-karl-you-got-it-wrong-final-crisis-of-capitalism/)

The existence of low-skilled or unskilled work has a positive benefit beyond the work itself.  It provides a means of independent living for the least able. In Britain the average IQ is 100. The way that IQ is distributed – in  a good approximation of normal distribution – means that 10% of the population has an IQ of 80 or lower. An IQ of 80 is thought by most experts in the field of intelligence testing to be the point at which an individual begins to struggle to live an independent life in an advanced industrial society such as Britain.  Without  low-skilled and unskilled work  the low IQ individual is left with no means to live an in independent life. That means in all probability a  heavy dependency on benefits with a likelihood of antisocial behaviour because they cannot live a life of norm al social responsibility.  Full employment is a social good which goes far beyond the overt material product of the employment.  The nationalised industries may have had a significant degree of over -manning in strict

The “ immigration does not lower wages or take jobs from Britons” lies

The immigration aspect of British unemployment is particularly potent. Since 1997 the large majority of  new jobs in Britain  have been taken by foreigners ,  with those coming from Eastern Europe being particularly drawn to low-skilled employments, viz.:

The ONS figures show the total number of people in work in both the private and the public sector has risen from around 25.7million in 1997 to 27.4million at the end of last year, an increase of 1.67million.

But the number of workers born abroad has increased dramatically by 1.64million, from 1.9million to 3.5million.

There were 23.8million British-born workers in employment at the end of last year, just 25,000 more than when Labour came to power. In the private sector, the number of British workers has actually fallen. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264333/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Under-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.htm l  –8th April 2010).

The situation has not changed since the 2010 general election. In November 2011 there are 147,000 more foreign born workers in Britain than there were in November 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8894148/Extra-150000-foreign-workers-in-Britain-as-unemployment-rises.html. )

Most of the immigrants to Britain who have entered employment since 1997 have taken low-skilled jobs: –

In the first quarter of 2011, around 1 in 5 workers, or 20.6 per cent, in low-skill occupations were born outside the UK. This figure has increased from around 1 in 11 workers, or 9.0 per cent, in the first quarter of 2002.

This represents an increase of 367,000 non-UK born workers in low-skill jobs, with 666,000 in the first quarter of 2011, up from 298,000 at the start of 2002.  Over the same period there was little change in the number of workers in low-skill jobs in the UK, which stood at around 3.2 million. However, the number of UK-born people in low-skill jobs fell from 3.04 million to 2.56 million.

There were also increases in the percentage of non-UK born workers in each of the three higher skill groups, although the increases there were not as large as that in low-skill jobs. Low-skill jobs are those that need a basic level of education and a short period of training, while high-skill occupations normally require a university level of education or extensive work experience.

The 1.7 million increase in the number of non-UK born workers is comprised of:

• 88,000 from EU 14 countries ((Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden)

• 585,000 from EU A8 countries(Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia)

• 1,010,000 from rest of the world countries Looking at workers at each job skill level, the majority of workers at each level were also UK-born, at 79.4 per cent, 87.2 per cent, 87.6 per cent and 86.1 per cent in low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-skill level jobs respectively.

Majority of workers born in EU A8 countries in low-skill occupations As there was a rise in EU A8-born workers in low-skill jobs over the last decade, it was also the case that workers in this group tended to be in low-skill jobs. In the first quarter of 2011, of all those born in EU A8 and working in the UK, 38.3 per cent were in low-skill jobs, while only 7.8 per cent were in high-skill jobs.

Majority of workers in the UK are UK-born Looking at all workers in the UK, the majority were UK-born. However, over the last decade, the number of UK-born workers fell by 223,000, while the number of non-UK born workers rose by 1.7 million. As a result, UK-born workers as a percentage of all workers fell from 91.5 per cent at the start of 2002, to 86.1 per cent at the start of 2011. (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_234559.pdf)

Those are of course only the official figures. There will also be a substantial number of immigrants taking jobs by working in the black economy.

If the  1.7milliion  official count jobs filled by immigrants since 1997 had been filled by Britons,   UK unemployment would be officially around 900,000 today, not good but still vastly better than what we have.   The vast majority of the jobs taken by immigrants  could have been done by Britons because they are low-skilled or unskilled.  This gives the lie to the idea that the movement to a service dominated economy would mean  a famine of jobs suitable for the less able and more poorly qualified.  The wilful destruction of much of Britain’s  manufacturing and extractive industries in the 1980s   and the later offshoring of  jobs dealt a severe blow to British employment opportunities,  but it did not in itself mean large numbers of Britons would be unable to find work.  It is the permitting of mass immigration which has brought that about.

It is not only unskilled  British workers who are  being squeezed out.  Certainly in London where I live, the building trade has been taken over by foreigners, especially those coming from Eastern Europe.  The takeover has been achieved very simply: the immigrant plumbers, carpenters, painters  and builders  have been willing to grossly undercut the wages of the British craftsman.    Despite  supposed shortage of midwives, British  midwives cannot find posts in Britain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8889007/Student-midwives-struggling-to-get-jobs-despite-shortage.html) and there are examples of skilled Britons being sacked as foreign companies bring in staff from their own country  ( http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2125178/huawei-accused-racial-discrimination).

For most of the decade from 2000 politicians of all stripes and the media refused to accept that immigrants were lowering wages. Around 2010 they began to accept  what the laws of supply and demand should have told them,  more people seeking work equals lower wages and poor non-money conditions of work. (http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/compensation-benefits-wages-salaries/12699472-1.html). This was deeply ironic because following Blair’s election as Labour leader, the left liberal fraternity religiously espoused worship of the market.

The “Britons won’t do the work” lie

Phone-ins, social networking and the individual experience of those around you tell the same story: there are very large numbers of Britons desperate for work, often any work,  who just cannot find any.  Again and again people tell of how they have  tried  for dozens, sometimes hundreds of jobs without getting even an interview. Media reports of employers  getting large numbers of applicants for even menial jobs are a regular feature( http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/25-people-chase-every-job-in-some-areas-of-london/423.article).  Many new graduates are finding that they have been sold a pup about the increased employability of those with a degree and are lucky to find any sort of  job. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/26/fifth-graduates-unemployed-ons).

It beggars belief that British employers are  employing foreign workers because they cannot find suitable people. Even if there was a problem with the attitude of young Britons, for which I see no evidence for as a general problem, it would not explain why older workers with a good work history are being overlooked.   The most likely explanation is that British  employers find foreign workers are cheaper and easier to lay off when they want to.

It is also true that where large numbers of people are needed,  gangmasters will be used and these are often foreign and only recruit people of their own nationality.  There is also the growing practice of foreign companies in Britain bringing  in their own people (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2125178/huawei-accused-racial-discrimination). There is also the possibility of corruption especially where public service organisations are concerned, with foreign agencies and the British people doing the hiring enter into a corrupt arrangement whereby the Britons ensure foreigners are recruited and receive a kickback for that from the foreign agents who supply the labour. The foreign agent gains through the fees for finding and supplying the foreign staff.

During the Blair/Brown bubble years there may have been an element of Britons unwilling to do some of the menial low paid jobs, but in our present dire financial straits that cannot be the case now even for low-skilled workers.  Moreover even during the Blair/Brown bubble , the rapidly rising property prices and rents and falling wages  often made it impossible for a Briton who had social obligations such as a family to support to take those jobs because they would not provide a means to support the family.  Most of the immigrants who came in, especially those from Eastern Europe,  were young men with no obligations beyond supporting themselves.  They are able , even on the minimum wages, to save a few thousand per year  and that money in their own country is worth multiples of  what it is worth in Britain.   Such immigrant workers  found that  they could work for a couple of years in Britain and save enough to buy a property in their own country. (Give Britons the chance to go abroad and earn enough to buy a  house in Britain and you will be trampled in the rush). In short,   there was never a level playing field between British and foreign workers.

The obligation of democratic governments

The first responsibility of a government in a  democratic country is to promote the well-being of its  citizens above those of foreigners.  To take the view, as successive British governments have  in practice taken since 1979, that immigrants are, in effect,  entitled to the privileges  accorded to British citizens is to render British citizenship null and void.  To think of the world as a single marketplace with labour, goods and services drawn from wherever is cheapest or most immediately available, is to reduce Britain to no more than a residence of convenience which can be used for the purposes of the individual without any concern for Britain as a society.  That is what Britain’s politicians  and her broader elite are dragging the country towards.  All sense of nation has not been lost ye, t but Britons are increasingly seeing themselves as abandoned by those who are supposed  to wield power on their behalf and for their good and are in desperation increasingly  looking for their own advantage without regard to the effects of their behaviour on the society they live in. .

If Britain had a political elite which acted as an elite should do in a democracy, they would cast aside the globalist fantasy and begin to rebuild a stable British economy and with it a much stronger and more settled society.  They would recover Britain’s sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU. They would end mass migration. They would allow Britain to re-industrialise behind protectionist barriers.  In doing those things they would produce a situation which would allow Britons to be employed in jobs which were secure and paid well enough, even at the unskilled level, to live a normal family life because Britain would become a high wage economy. This would be because even the least skilled in society would have a value , for  the unskilled  work would still need to be done and  there would not be an immigrant army  to do it . This would either  put a premium on those willing to do the unskilled work who would command higher pay or the unskilled work would have to be done as incidental work by those  doing more skilled work, for example, cleaning the workplace in addition to being  a draughtsman.  A fantasy? Well, it is what happens in Norway , a very high wage economy.

The black-instigated and dominated 2011 riots and the Great Elite lie

Robert Henderson

The politically inspired fog covering the race and ethnicity of those  involved in the August riots is beginning to clear. The Ministry of Justice have produced a further  analysis of people  arrested and brought before the courts  for offences committed in the rioting in England between  6th and 9th August       (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf).  The data is complete to 12th October.

The Home Office has also produce a report dated simply October
2011 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary).
There are differences in the mode of collection of data between the two reports, but the message is broadly the same.

The large majority of those brought before the courts committed their  alleged crimes in
London.  1,984 people had appeared before the courts by midday on 12th October 2011. By riot area the figures are:

• London – 1,386

• West Midlands – 174

• Nottingham – 64

• Greater Manchester – 200

• Merseyside – 62

• Other areas – 98

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p4). The overwhelming majority of those brought before the courts were from areas with large non-white populations.

The reports include an ethnic/racial breakdown of those arrested and those brought before the courts.  These demonstrate clearly that blacks were grossly overrepresented, Asians proportionately  represented and whites grossly underrepresented in proportion to their part of the population of England. Here is  the Ministry of Justice:

Comparisons by ethnicity (where ethnicity was recorded) show that 42 per cent of those brought before the courts were White, 46 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background, 7 per cent were from an Asian or mixed Asian background, 5 per cent were other. The proportions vary significantly by area. However, caution is needed when analysing these figures as the comparisons with the local population have not been fully age adjusted (p4).

This broadly agrees with the ethnic  breakdown of those arrested  given in the Home Office report :

Forty per cent of all arrestees described their ethnicity as White, 39 per cent as Black, 11 per cent as from a Mixed ethnic background, eight per cent as Asian and two per cent
from some other ethnic background. (p4).

There are two ways of looking at the figures: by comparison with the population of England as a whole and by comparison with  the populations of the areas in which the
riots took place. (I have had to use the estimates for England and Wales because the ONS  treats England and Wales as a single entity. However, the distortion is minor because Wales’ population is only approximately 3 million).

The Office of National Statistics estimates of the ethnicity of England and Wales  in 2011 are

% White, British 82.79

% Mixed 1.85

% Asian or Asian British 6.11

% Black or Black British 2.94

% Chinese 0.85

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/18/ethnic-population-england-wales)

Blacks with 2.94 of the population comprise  46% of those brought before the courts , while whites (which includes white immigrants) with 82.79% of the population provide only  42% of this group. Asian representation approximately reflects their percentage of the UK population. The comparison with the populations of the riot areas  showed an even greater black involvement. This was true even in the few areas where there was only a small non-white population, for example;

 Salford – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Salford, 94 per cent were White and six per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 88 per cent white and two per cent black or mixed Black backgrounds.

In areas where the non-white population was substantial, the proportion of those  brought before the courts  who were classified as wholly or partially black  was stark. For example;

 Haringey – of defendants brought before the court who live in Haringey, 34 per cent were White and 55 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 62 per cent were White and 17 per cent were from a Black or  mixed Black background.

 Nottingham – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Nottingham, 32 per cent were White and 62 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 71 per cent were White and nine per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background.

 Birmingham – of defendants brought before the courts, 46 per cent were from a Black background, 33 per cent from a White background and 15 per cent from and Asian background.Whereas the resident population, aged under 40, comprised 58 per cent  , 30 per cent from Asian and nine per cent from Black backgrounds. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
– pp16/17)

The figures do not necessarily represent the actual ethnic/racial participation in the riots. The sample depends  on those arrested and brought before the courts self-identifying their racial group.  5 per cent did not  identify their race.   Which group would be less likely
to refuse to identify their race? I think it  unlikely that whites would do so because  in Britain being white does not carry any stigma or sense of being outside the mainstream.  Most  of that 5%  could probably be assigned to non-whites.

There is also the willingness and ability of the police to arrest and investigate members of  all racial and ethnic groups with equal vigour and success and the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute without any regard to ethnicity or race.

There can be no certainty about  the even handedness of the police and CPS  because the public does not have access to the police data including the vast amount of CCTV evidence.
Nonetheless, it is possible to say what is probable.  As everyone who watched the TV coverage or viewed the many postings on sites like YouTube of TV coverage or private recordings, it is clear that where gangs of rioters were breaking into shops and other
buildings the rioters were overwhelmingly black. Despite assiduous efforts to find a white gang making the initial breach into a property I have found none.   Nor have I been able to find a white gang rioting or looting in any circumstances.  Whites actually looting either appear  in ones or twos or  occasionally as part of a predominantly black gang.

If that interpretation of how the riots evolved is correct – black initiation and domination of the rioting and looting followed by opportunistic white involvement –  it is probable that the police have disproportionately arrested whites compared with blacks.  This would be because whites, not being in gangs, would be easier  and safer to arrest than blacks, both during the riots and afterwards.  The  police would also be chary of tackling non-whites and especially black gangs both during the riots and later because of the politically correct ideology which has taught the police that dealing with blacks is dangerous because of accusations of racism.    There is some indication of that this may have happened   because the Home Office report on the riots http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p5 ) downplays the role of gangs:

Overall 13 per cent of arrestees (417) were reported to be affiliated to a gang. Outside London, the majority of forces identified fewer than ten per cent of all arrestees as gang
members, and only two non-London forces estimated figures in excess of this – West Yorkshire (19%) and Nottinghamshire (17%). For these two forces, these percentages only represent relatively small numbers of arrestees (13 and 20 respectively; see Table A15 in Annex). In London, police reported that 19 per cent of arrestees – 337suspects, drawn from 169 different gangs – were identified as gang members. This is far more numerous than those arrested in all other forces combined. However, even in London, the great majority of arrestees (81%) were not identified by the police as being members of gangs. It should be noted that the way in which gang members were identified was not completely consistent between forces as no standard definition of gang membership was used. (p 18).

The relatively small percentage of those identified as gang members could be the consequence of  a failure to arrest or investigate a large proportion of the black rioters and looters. It should also be understood that gangs are generally a black and Asian phenomenon. The 13 per cent is probably drawn overwhelmingly from the the  non-white rioters.

The white component of those brought before the courts is  problematic because although it is  low compared with the group’s dominance of the English population,  there is no clear differentiation between foreigners and native white Britons nor a figure for the total numbers of foreigners brought before the courts.  (I made and an analysis of arrested rioters names in August –  http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/the-racial-and-ethnic-make-up-of-the-august-2011-uk-rioters-by-group/–  which  shows some rioters with European names. It is a fair bet that most of these were white).

The number of foreigners sent to prison either after sentence or on remand  was  110  at 30th September (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p18). This constituted  13 per cent of those sent to or remanded in prison.  It is a reasonable assumption that a significant proportion of these people were white and further that those brought before the courts but not jailed will also contain a  proportion of white foreigners.  If, as the video evidence suggests,  the white foreigners like whites generally   tended to be opportunistic looters rather than engaging in violence against people or property,  they would be less likely to be sentenced to prison or remanded in custody than blacks who clearly were
responsible for most of the serious assaults on initial property (the breaking into shops and other premises).  That could mean that their appearance in the overall totals of those arrested and those brought before the courts but not held in custody could be higher than
those sent to prison.

The course of the riots also supports the view that blacks instigated and dominated the rioting and looting and other racial groups took advantage of their seeming  freedom from
police action after the police stood off in the first days. Here is the Home Office description of  what happened during the five days:

Day 1 Saturday, 6 August – Incidents of unrest in Tottenham with vehicles, shops and residential buildings set alight, and looting of shops.

Day 2 Sunday, 7 August – Further incidents of disorder occur in others areas of London affecting principally Enfield, Wood Green, Brixton, Walthamstow and Islington.

Day 3 Monday, 8 August – Disorder becomes widespread in London, with disorder occurring across almost all London boroughs. Incidents of disorder also occur in Avon and Somerset (Bristol), West Midlands (Birmingham) and Merseyside (Liverpool).

Day 4 Tuesday, 9 August – Although disorder in the London area begins to dissipate, disorder becomes more widespread throughout parts of Thames Valley (Reading, Milton Keynes), West Yorkshire  (Leeds), Leicestershire (Leicester) and Greater Manchester (Salford, Manchester). Unrest also continues in Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham.

Day 5 Wednesday, 10 August – Disorder continues into the early hours on Wednesday in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester and Merseyside. Widespread disorder has now largely died out, though isolated disorder continues throughout the evening into early hours of Thursday. Some low-level isolated unrest continues over the following days. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p7).

The flow of the disorder is clear: it started in areas of heavy  black settlement and gradually spread to places with smaller proportions of blacks in the population. In those areas a much smaller amount of  looting and  criminal damage occurred.

The dominant  element of criminal intent (as opposed to political protest) in the riots can be seen from the high proportion of those brought before the courts with a criminal
conviction or caution:

• Overall 76 per cent of those who have appeared before the courts for the disorder had a previous caution or conviction

• 80 per cent of adults and 62 per cent of juveniles had a previous caution or conviction.

•71 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

 •45 per cent of males aged 10-17 brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction. This compares with two per cent of the 10-17 year old male population who have at least one previous conviction

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p7).

These statistics should be viewed in the context that the police will have been much more likely to identify  people with a criminal record or caution  from CCTV and other images than those who are unknown to them. However,  there were many arrests at  the scene of crimes and the difference between the general population and those brought before the courts is so stark that is unlikely to be wildly inaccurate as a representation of  the rioters in general, whether arrested or not.

There was a strong  age  bias towards the young.:

Comparisons by age show that 26 per cent of those brought before the courts for offences relating to the public disorder were aged 10-17 (juveniles) and that a further 27 per cent were aged 18-20. Only five per cent of those appearing before the courts for the disorder were over 40 years old. (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
– p3).  Because the age profile of blacks and Asians in Britain is significantly younger than that of whites,  it is probable that a higher percentage of  blacks and Asians are included in the  younger offender groups than amongst the overall group of those brought before the courts.

The claims of social deprivation do not stand up. This is not because  the rioters were  not  poor or at least came predominantly from areas of social deprivation.  They  did. Moreover, their  educational attainments were below  average – see p 20 http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf.  The reason why the claims fall is because there are many other parts of the country equally poor  with populations lacking educational success which did not riot.  The difference is that these areas had small or non-existent black populations.  

Calling black multi-coloured

What is clear is the determination of the British political elite to deny the reality of the riots. Instead of accepting that these events were black riots and lootfests which encouraged opportunistic looting by a small percentage of whites and a larger percentage of Asians, they have painted the riots as being racially undifferentiated  and the product of variously “broken Britain”, “an  underclass” , “social deprivation”  and “feral children”.  At best they are sweeping a problem under the carpet and at worst cynically tarring the native white population with a brush filled with a politically correct lie.

I submitted this prospective epetition (https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)
:

The Commons to debate why the true nature of the black-instigated and dominated 2011 riots has  been denied by politicians of all parties who have insisted on the  false equality of participation of all races and ethnicities in the riots,  despite the fact that anyone watching the voluminous TV and private video coverage of the riots could see that  blacks were involved out of all proportion to their presence in the population, a fact given statistical support by the Ministry of Justice analysis of those brought before the courts which showed 46 per cent being black or mixed race and 7 per cent being Asian – http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf

Almost needless to say it was turned down.

 

 

 

Remember, remember the fifth of November – it speaks to us today

Robert Henderson

Anyone taking their cue from the mainstream British media would imagine that Guy Fawke’s night is merely an archaic piece of religious bigotry. The papers and airwaves are alive with mediafolk and politicos tut-tutting over  the “anti-Catholic festival”,   with the more advanced liberal  bigots amongst them musing whether it should be banned as it
“incites hate”, while the less straightforward propagandise  for its abolition under the shelter of “health and safety”  with a recitation of the tremendous risks involved with bonfires and fireworks.

The truth, as ever with liberal bigots, is  the exact opposite of  what they claim. To equate   anti-Catholic feeling in 1605 (and for many years afterwards) with simple, wilful hatred is to display a howling ignorance of both history and of societies which are dominated by
religious belief. By  1605 England had endured 70 years of incessant Catholic threat since
the breach with Rome.*  Under Mary Tudor she had had a very dirty  taste of  what a Catholic Restoration would mean, with burnings and general persecution.  Before English eyes were the constant  sufferings of Protestants on the  Continent.   The re-conversion of England to Catholicism would mean  at best the intolerance of the Inquisition   and at worst   a Catholic foreigner  such as Mary’s husband Philip II of Spain sitting  on the English throne.  The great massacre of French  Protestants on  St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572  was dreadful warning of  what  fate might await  Protestants  under a Catholic monarch.

Throughout the reign of Elizabeth, the fate of  Protestantism  hung by precious  few threads, the sturdiest of which was England. On the continent only Sweden and the nascent power of the Dutch Republic stood between  the power of Spain, the great  agent of the counter-Reformation. Most  of  Europe  remained Catholic. The two greatest continental kingdoms,  Spain and  France were  Catholic and the (Catholic) Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs was still a considerable  force.   Had England fallen to Rome  the Counter-Reformation would in all probability have triumphed.  Had the Dutch Republic failed  England would have been utterly isolated as a Protestant kingdom.

An  analogy with the position that England found itself under between the 1530s and 1605 would be that of Britain  in WW2 before America joined the war. Yet the Elizabethan situation was more perilous by far. The WW2 situation lasted for less than 30 months; that of England in 1605 had lasted 70 years and would last the Lord knew how much longer. Worse, there was no great overseas help to be had because there was no  Elizabethan equivalent of the USA or the Empire and the population of England was tiny  (3-4 million at best)  compared to the powers which opposed her.

During the 45  years following Elizabeth’s accession (1558)  Spain had three times tried and failed to invade England (1588, 1596, 1597). As recently  as   1601 Spain invaded Ireland and joined with Irish forces, but was defeated at the battle of Kinsale in Co. Cork.

To these external threats may be added the incessant Catholic plots against Elizabeth’s life throughout her reign,  with the shadow of Mary Queen of Scots  covering  most of them until her long overdue execution in 1586.

The mentality of  those  English Catholics who were prepared to act against the Crown was treasonable in the extreme. They’re cast of mind is exemplified by Reginald Pole, whom Mary Tudor rewarded with the Archbishopric of Canterbury and the Pope rewarded with a  cardinal’s red hat. Pole fled England after falling out with Henry VIII. He then wrote
a pamphlet imploring all Catholic powers of the day from the emperor Charles V to Frances I of France to invade England  and for all Englishmen to support the invaders.

For men such as Pole religion was all.  To make England Catholic was their only end. There was no arguing with them. Like the fanatic Muslim today everything else subordinate to their religion.  As Catholics,  their loyalty was to the Pope not to their king or country. The Catholic traitors of Elizabeth’s reign  would have willingly allowed a creature  such as the Duke of Alva to land and devastate England as he had devastated the Low Countries. Nothing was too terrible if it meant England  was to became Catholic once more. Truly, England in 1605 had no reason to  doubt that   she was under threat from  within and without her shores.

The modern  British mind has difficulty with understanding that religion was a very different beast to what it is today.  It does not understand that religion was not a quiet, private activity then but rather something which coloured the whole of life. Unbelief if it existed kept its head well buried. Intelligent, educated men were often ecstatic in their devotion and the poor if deficient in theology mixed their  Christianity with a healthy dose of pagan superstition, vide the  witch mania of the time.

Because religion was taken seriously, not only the fate of the individual soul but the fortunes of a country seemed to rest on the performance and nature of the religion of the country. Hence, to a Protestant the maintenance of England as a Protestant nation  was as
vital as its  re-conversion  to Catholicism was to a Catholic. This belief,  coupled with the actual behaviour of Counter-Reformation Catholic countries towards Protestants , was enough to persuade any English Protestant that  nothing worse than a Catholic England could be envisioned.

Religion was then a political question, the most important political question of the day and  Catholics of necessity were traitors because they had to give their loyalty to the Pope.  That was the long and short of it for Protestant England.

The response to the gunpowder plot was, in  the context of the day, extraordinarily mild.  The plotters had encompassed a plan the like of which had never been attempted before and which arguably has never been made reality anywhere ever. They designed to kill the entire English ruling elite, including the King,  in one fell swoop. A  more clinical and diabolically simple means of  revolution cannot be imagined. No  wonder the English elite  were terrified and the people easily roused to rage. There was some tightening of the laws and their enforcement against Catholics, but  there was no English St Bartholomew’s Day
against them.

The creation of a day of commemoration by Parliament on the 5th  of  November was a brilliant political act which kept the danger of further  Catholic plots and invasions before the people. Its popularity and longevity as a truly anti-Catholic festival  shows that Parliament was  utterly  in tune with the people.

The festival has renewed relevance today with the re-importation of fanatic religion in the form of Islam whose adherents acknowledge no country  and who, like the Catholic church of old, seek nothing less than the encompassing of the world within their faith. Plus ca change…

Today Britain is subject to a foreign power (the EU) to whom she pays an annual tribute (the difference between what is paid to Brussels and what we get back) and from whom she suffers constant interference with her internal affairs (virtually everything). In addition, Britain  has to bear institutions on her territory which are controlled by the foreign power (foreign inspectors of various sorts)  and the foreign power is attempting to make allegiance to the foreign power superior to Britons allegiance to Britain. (EU citizenship, the EU  Constitution).
*England’s  position before  Henry VIII’s  breach with Rome has startling similarities with  Britain’s position  today. Catholic England was a country subject to a foreign power (the Papacy) to whom she paid an annual tribute (Peter’s Pence) and from whom she  suffered constant interference with her internal affairs (clerical appointments). In addition, Catholic England had to bear institutions on her soil which were directly controlled by the foreign power (religious houses  founded under the direct authority of the Papacy) and every English man and woman owed their first allegiance to the Pope as Christ’s vicar on
Earth.

Part of England has has been invaded part 2

Robert Henderson

‘Gerald Howarth, the MP for Aldershot, warned his constituency is in danger of being  verwhelmed by an influx of retired soldiers, who won the right to move to Britain following a landmark ruling in 2009.

More than 7,500 former Ghurkhas from Nepal have settled in the UK in the last two years, with the Hampshire borough of Rushmoor proving one of the most popular areas for them to settle.

But Mr Howarth said local services in the area are struggling to cope and he risked the wrath of many supporters by calling for them to spread more evenly around the country.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: “There needs to be a policy of dispersal.”

Appealing to other local authorities across Britain he added: “Why not invite the Nepalese community to come and settle in their areas. It’s a perfectly sensible policy. Dispersal is what we do with asylum seekers.”’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8775687/Disperse-Gurkhas-like-asylum-seekers-urges-minister.html).

In February 2011 I wrote “Part of England has been invaded”  which concerned an influx of   around 9,000 Gurkhas  into the Aldershot area in Hampshire following  Joanna Lumley’s campaign for them to be allowed to settle in the UK. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/part-of-england-has-been-invaded/).

The local MP Gerald Howarth contributed the following  comments under “Part of England has been invaded”:   “How about all the Somalis who come to UK, get all the  facilities by our government to raise their seven kids? What about all the other foreigners coming to our country? What about the hundreds of thousands of Polish people coming to our country? Who knows better to mess up our system then them? They are every where…

“ Poor Gurkhas, proud for being a part of English history, what have they done to deserve the targeted attack such as this?”  (Go to the article and then scroll down to the end of the comments to find Mr Howarth’s comment. He contributed under the name “Gerald” but WordPress reveals the emails of  those who post, in this case gerald.howarth@rushmore.gov.uk ).

I replied “Mr Howarth – Rest assured that I am resolutely against mass immigration generally and have been since the 1960s. It is an insidious form of conquest which politicians of all stripes have connived at since 1945. I urge you to use your position in Parliament to speak unequivocally against its continuance.

“The Ghurkhas are an imperial left-over. Brave and loyal soldiers undoubtedly but an anachronism. Their position is that of simple mercenaries now. The honourable way to discharge them is to give those still serving a decent pay-off, send them back to Nepal and set up a fund of, say, £100 million to provide assistance to the children and other dependants of  Ghurkhas with things such as education and healthcare. That will ease the transition.

“I doubt whether your constituents, especially those in the areas settled by the recent Ghurkha influx, will be so sanguine as you appear to be. Apart from changing the nature of their immediate world, the pressure put on housing and other goods and services must be intense.

“As for Britain’s future military needs, I think you will find this of interest:

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/armed-forces-to-defend-britain-not-to-serve-the-new-world-order/

That was the end of the exchange.  A good example of the difference between  British  politicians’ private and public views about race and immigration.

The native population in the area settled by Ghurkhas  have been getting increasing angry about the invasion, viz: ‘More than 2,300 people have joined Facebook groups entitled “Joanna Lumley has F—– up Aldershot and Farnborough” and “Lumley’s Legacy”…

Sam Phillips, who founded the groups, insisted that he was not racist and had “great appreciation” for the sacrifices the Ghurkhasmade for Britain.

The 35-year-old HGV driver, from Aldershot said: “Joanna Lumley was happy to use her face to get publicity for her cause, now we are using her name to show the result.

Our problem is not with the Ghurkhas it is with the government. If they matched the increase in residents with an increase in money and infrastructure there would not be a problem.”’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8768670/Joanna-Lumley-targeted-in-online-campaign-against-influx-of-Gurkhas.html)

The fact that over 2,000 people have signed up to such Facebook groups speaks volumes  in these very politically correct times when to deviate from the liberal line that immigration is an unalloyed good is to invite a shout  of “racist”, the latterday  secular equivalent of a cry of “heretic” during the Reformation.

Mr Howarth’s most recent comments are a good example of the bind that British mainstream politicians are in when race and ethnicity raise their head.  It is quite clear  from his public and private comments that he is both under intense pressure from his constituents  and has angry private feelings about immigrants.  Yet he cannot act with
honesty because he knows that to do so would certainly spell the end of his ministerial  career and probably result in his de-selection as a Tory MP before the next election.

There is also either disingenuousness or great naivety in his proposal that the Ghurkhas be dispersed.  To begin with it is most unlikely that the Coalition government would sanction such as an act; the Tories from either an anachronistic  sentimentality  about “loyal servants of Britain ”or simply from fear of being thought racist  and the LibDems on their general resistance to any control of immigration. Moreover, both Parties are only too aware of the way public support was whipped up by the campaign to allow the Ghurkhas to settle in Britain.  Those of the public who have not been directly affected  by the Ghurkha influx will probably have  much of that sentimentality left, although as the monetary  cost of allowing them into Britain has become more widely known this sympathy  may have substantially diminished  from the high point when Joanna Lumley’s campaign was triumphant.

But even if a policy of dispersal was adopted, there would be little chance of it happening.  It is one thing to disperse individual asylum seekers to different parts of the country, quite another to move 9,000 people with a strong group identity. It is also difficult to see how people who are here as legal residents rather than  people awaiting a decision on a claim for asylum  could be forced to either move or,  if they were dispersed, to remain in the place to which they were moved.  It would require new laws, but even if such laws  were passed it is almost certain they would clash with the Human Rights Act.

There is also the EU dimension because, being legally resident within Britain that means they are legally entitled to travel and  settle anywhere within the EU.  Finally, there would be the question of what would happen when they have been in Britain long enough to apply for British citizenship and the complications of any children born here (who would be British) or intermarriage between the Ghurkhas and British citizens.  To legally  engage in a policy of dispersal  Britain would probably, as a minimum,  have to leave the EU, repudiate the European Convention on Human Rights and repeal the Human Rights Act.

But even if they could be dispersed and made to stay where they were sent (highly improbable), the  problem would not be solved.  If they were not to be too onerous a burden on local services or change the nature of an area they would have to be sent in groups of dozens rather than hundreds or a thousand. That would lead to complaints, which would be vociferously taken up by the many politicians, mediafolk and pressure groups who are only too ready to ride the “anti-racism” hobbyhorse.  It is dubious whether
any  conceivable British Government would be willing to go against such pressure.

If the Ghurkhas were  by some miracle dispersed in small groups that would bring its own
problems.  According to media reports, many  of the dependants are old and do not speak
English.  In small, isolated groups, the call for interpreters both in their  general life and in specialist areas such as healthcare would be problematic in the extreme.

In such circumstances what should the aggrieved part of the  population of the Aldershot area do?  The call for additional money from the money is badly mistaken.  It suggests that the only objection to the Ghurkhas is the cost and the pressure on housing and local services. That will be part of  the resentment,  but the core of the complaint is the simple human emotion of  wanting to defend territory against invaders.  If the protestors use  only the material resources argument the danger is that the Government will throw some money at the problem and the Ghurkhas will remain in situ.

Those who object to the Ghurkhas  should base their argument against the invasion primarily on the way it has changed the nature of the area.  In  these politically correct time that is not easy. However, it can be done in a way to make accusations of racism difficult to sustain.  The trick is, firstly, to contrast the way the area was before the influx with the way it is now and,  secondly, to contrast the way the likes of Lumley live with the way residents affected by the Ghurkha influx live now.  Do this by using photographs. It is
difficult  for the authorities to act if all you are doing is showing reality.

The other lines of attack should be to diminish sympathy for the Ghurkhas amongst the general public.   This can be done in various ways: by publicising the cost  of the Ghurkhas, raising awkward questions such as  how 9,000 could have been so readily housed in an expensive county such as Hampshire and emphasising that  the loss of Empire reduced them to the status of simple mercenaries, something which is inappropriate for a modern democratic state such as Britain.

It is also necessary to remove the halo from “Saint” Joanna. That should not be too  difficult  because the behaviour of Lumley will seem to many to be deeply hypocritical.   She was largely responsible for creating this situation,  but once things started to go wrong and  the local population began to object to the invasion,  she shrank into public silence.

Generally, the trick is to engage as many of the supporters of the Ghurkhas  in public debate.  In such circumstances just keep hammering away at their personal circumstances, where they live,  what is the ethnic make-up of the areas in which they live, and so on. They will invariably have arranged their lives in very white, and in England, very English worlds, either by living in an area untouched by immigration or creating white enclaves in the cities such  as Hampstead and Islington in London.  Once you have established that is their condition,  put the question to them which  Abe Lincoln asked
of the pro-slavers who argued slavery benefited the slaves: “What is this good thing no man wants for himself?” the good thing in this case being the joy of diversity.  Shame those with power into doing something. It is your only hope.

You will need to make a suggestion as to what should be done about the Ghurkhas.  Suggest what I put forward in my reply to Gerald Howarth: send them back to Nepal with a decent wad of money.

Keep your language,  spoken and written, formally polite, avoid crude abuse, stick to the narrow parameters I have laid out above and you will give the opposition no easy means of distracting from the core issue – the invasion f the territory. If the authorities try to threaten you stand firm and they will leave you alone.  They only ever prosecute
people  for racial incitement, and that rarely, when they know the  victim is going to lie down and either plead guilty or shape  their defence  within limits which will avoid any testing of the effects  arising from mass immigration.

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 19th Century 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.

No need to speaka da English in the NHS

Robert Henderson

Speaking in the House of  Lords Lord Winston, professor of fertility studies at Imperial College London,   has warned that the employment of nurses from within the EU and the European Economic Area  (EEA – this is the EU and countries with looser trade arrangements with the EU  such as Norway and Switzerland)  in the NHS is resulting in nurses whose English is inadequate for the job.  This he attributes to the fact that nurses (and doctors)  from within the EU do not have to pass an English test because that would breach the freedom of movement  of labour within the EU.  Medical staff coming from outside the EU are subject to an English test.

Describing the situation as intolerable, Winston went on to say:

‘It is not right for fellow practitioners to have to work with these individuals…But most of all it is not right for citizens of our country, who at times when they are unwell and becoming patients in our healthcare systems need to be absolutely certain that the practitioners to whom they are exposed are competent, meet the standards required of medical practitioners in our country and therefore can with certainty provide the quality of care that citizens in our country deserve.’ ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035316/Lord-Winstons-stark-warning-NHS-workers-Romania-Bulgaria.html#ixzz1XUKU7UG3).

Winston’s criticism is  welcome but does not deal with the wider problem of inadequate English within the NHS.  The problem extends across the full range of foreign nurses and doctors wherever they come from.  I can vouch for this from my recent experience of a large central  London hospitals.

Two years ago I  spent ten days in the hospital.  During that time I encountered few nurses or doctors who had English as a first language. Some spoke English  adequately but most did not.  Those who were inadequate fell into three classes:

1. Those whose comprehension and understanding of the language was simply inadequate.

2. Those who had accents so thick it was very difficult to understand them.

3. Those who could speak English competently  but who could not readily understand English if it was either colloquial or deviated far from  “BBC English”  (received pronunciation) .

These deficiencies  were amplified by the fact that sick people are frequently not at their most coherent and if someone is not absolutely fluent in the language they speak , understanding on both sides, that of the patient and the medical staff, will be very difficult.

The problem of language stretches beyond the  nurses and doctors  to technicians such as radiographers , the clinic administrators, the pharmacists , the porters, the ward orderlies and the cleaners. There is ample opportunity for these people to make serious mistakes simply because they do not understood what is said to them.

The problem is exacerbated  where the work has been contracted out to private operators not under the control of the hospital. During my stay in hospital I discovered that these services had  placed in the hands of three separate private operators:  patients’ meals, ward cleaning and the maintenance of multi-media installations (TV, radio, Internet, phone). This produced a constant flow of   people into wards over whom the ward sister had no control.

Why has Winston not gone further in his criticism? Possibly because the pressures of political correctness make it difficult for him to criticise medical staff coming from outside the EEA as  they are commonly black or Asian, whereas those from  the EEA are mostly white.  Also as a doctor, he will be  naturally reluctant to criticise fellow doctors wherever they come from.

Others have been less reticent, at least about EEA doctors: “Jim Morrison, chairman of Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, has said: “I don’t want to sound racist but some of the worst-speaking doctors I have come across have been from Europe.””
( http://ukgovernment.co/do-doctors-that-cannot-speak-english-put-uk-patients-at-risk/500182).  The Britsh Medical Assaociation has also expressed great concern about EEA doctors some of whom has needed interpreters when working. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8414727/Foreign-doctors-work-in-Britain-without-speaking-English.html

 

 

The number of foreign nurses  and doctors in the UK has increased massively  in recent years. In  2006 the Royal College of Nursing  reported that 90,000 foreign nurses had registered in the UK since 1997 (http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/78703/003049.pdf) and after  language tests for EEA nurses was removed in October 2010 1,500 registered in the following five months ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035316/Lord-Winstons-stark-warning-NHS-workers-Romania-Bulgaria.html#ixzz1XUXxkt6p).

As for doctors, in 2008 nearly half of the 277,000 doctors registered  in the UK had obtained their  first medical degree abroad (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3321919.ece) and in 2011 around ten per cent of doctors registered  (22,060) were from the EEA, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035316/Lord-Winstons-stark-warning-NHS-workers-Romania-Bulgaria.html#ixzz1XUZL0RaD)

Why has this massive influx occurred and is still occurring?  It is difficult to explain on the face of things for British trained  doctors and nurses  have been unable to find work in Britain because of the foreign influx (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3321919.ece and http://www.nursingtimes.net/specialist-news/acute-care-news/immigration-cap-leaves-trusts-unable-to-hire-staff/5019121.article). The answer is probably the same as it is for jobs generally in the UK, those responsible for employing  health staff are giving preference to foreign staff over native Britons because they are cheaper, easier to sack and less likely to complain about poor conditions or treatment.  The employers  may also have been influenced by the constant contemptible  claims of politicians and others with access to the mass media that British workers generally  are not up to the job.  When the practice becomes institutionalised it becomes the norm.

It is also probable that British hospitals  recruit nurses and doctors  through agencies which deal largely or solely in foreign medical staff.  In those instances the jobs will never appear of the open labour market.    Where that happens there are obvious opportunities for corrupt practice. For example,  agencies paying a kickback to the person who employs someone they supply . It is also possible that foreign staff may pay bribes to those making staff appointments to get the job, something most people from abroad would not find odd because it is the norm to pay bribes in  their country of origin.

What applies to doctors and nurses applies to all the other staff in a hospital, including those working for private contractors on contracted out work.

Just as immigration into Britain generally has swelled mightily since the late 1990s, so has the employment of immigrants in the NHS. Since the late 1990s  I have been attending as an outpatient the hospital  where I was an in-patient two years ago. When I started the  large majority of staff both medical and administrative were British.  Now they are in the minority.  At a time of high unemployment  there should be no difficulty in employing mostly British staff at the non-medical level.  We could also employ many more British nurses and doctors if we did not drive them abroad by filling positions with foreigners .   That, together with very stringent English tests for foreigners where these are required, would remove the problem of  doctors and nurses with inadequate English.

To achieve control over who we may or may not allow into Britain to work will require Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and any other treaties which affect our ability to control our orders.

 

 

 

The racial and ethnic make-up of the August 2011 UK rioters by group

Robert Henderson

I have taken the same Daily Telegraph data used in my earlier analysis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8698443/UK-riots-suspected-looters-statistics-and-court-cases.html) and divided the names into groups which give the strongest pointer to race and ethnicity. During this process I discovered various duplications in the Daily Telegraph’s data and the total of named people is now 278.

The various group totals are:

21 Biblical names

37 British surnames but non-British forenames

4 Double barrelled surnames

21 African names

48 Muslim names

5 Non-Muslim Asians

16 Foreign European names

126 Those with British names who could plausibly be white or black

The first thing to note is that those with British names who could be  plausibly white or black comprise less than half the named charged rioters and looters. If every one of the 126 is assumed to have been white and British that would still mean around 53% of the rioters were either black or Asian, despite the fact that they formed less than 8% of the UK population at the time of the last published census in 2001. That gives a false picture of  Asian involvement,  because apart from Muslims only five Asians appear and it is a fair bet that some of the Muslims are black rather than Asians.

It is also improbable in the extreme that all of the 126 in the either black or white group were white. Bearing in mind (1) the overwhelming dominance of blacks in the riots which is readily apparent from the voluminous footage of the rioting and (2) the fact that the riots occurred overwhelmingly in areas with a large black population, it is reasonable to assume that many  will have been black.  If it is assumed that only 50% of the 126 are black, the number of white Britons involved in the 282 group of those charged was probably around 60-70. It may well have been substantially less than that.

Group Data

Those with Biblical names – these are most probably black

Nathan David Evans,Male,21,11/14/1989

Nathan Anthony George Henry,Male,

Nathan Dempster,Male,18

Joshua Mathias Courtney Jones,Male,30,8/16/1980

Levi Nesbitt,Male,20

Aaron Mulholland,Male

Aaron Israel,Male,21,4/24/1990

Aaron Young,Male,20,3/19/1991

Aaron Grima,Male,22

Aaron Samuels,Male,29

Aaron Hugh Mulholland,Male,30,7/5/1981

Aaron Warwood,Male,18

Micah Lammie,Male,22,3/18/1989

Samuel Green,Male,22

Samuel Konneh,Male,30

Samuel Thomas Green,Male,22

Daniel Bell,Male,30

Daniel Hourd,Male,21

Daniel Moran,Male,26

Medad Coker,Male,30,10/21/1980

Cain Larden,Male,25

Total 21

Those with regulation British surnames but forenames which are used primarily by blacks.

Mr Byron Cawley,Male,19,3/14/1992

Sanchez Banton,Male,18

Samuel Jolly,Male,18

Curtis Dejean,Male,

Jacques Samuel De La Lubie,Male,18

Lorriane Andalinda Mcgrane,Male,

Byron Cawley,Male,19

Tyrrel Shannon,Male,19

Pierre Wilkinson,Male,20,10/7/1990

Miss Shereece Ashley,Female

Jerome Lewis,Male,20,1/3/1991

Alicia Smith,Female,20

Stefan Hoyle,Male,19,1/21/1992

Jordan Blackshaw,Male,20

Jordan Kelly,Male,20,1/9/1991

Harrison  Mccalla,Male,20

Travis Cadogan,Male,22,9/1/1988

Shonola Smith,22

Kairo Lawson,Male,21

Kaine Stephen Thorpe,Male,24,5/1/1987

Felix Jones,Male,25

Byron Payton,Male,26

Lloyd Mansfield Mcgregor,Male,27,7/30/1984

Chammel Chrison Pusey,Male,27,9/14/1983

Asha Mcdevitt,Male,28

Antany Edwards,Male,23

Marvin Seymour,Male,24

Dayle Blinkhorn,,23

Brice Haddan Green,Male,23,7/9/1988

Lance Prince,Male,20,11/10/1990

Saffron Armstrong,Male,21

Jade Wallace,Female,22

Troy Mcleod,Male,27,9/19/1983

Reiss Wilson,Male,21

Shelly Bishop,Female,36

Rodney Benoni Davis,Male,18,4/28/1993

Ashton Alexander,Male,18

Kellie Hall,Female,25,4/15/1986

Total 37

Double barrelled surnames – these will most probably be black

Reece Davis-james,Male,18

Alexander Elliott-joahill,Male,18,4/16/1993

Alexander Elliott-johill,Male,18

Gary Howe-sampson,Male,20

Total 4

Those with African names – these will definitely be black

James Antwi,Male,18,12/19/1992

David Attoh,Male,18,

Ohene Bamfo,Male,20

Olufemi Akande,Male,20

Lloyd Coudjoe,Male,20

Fredrick Osei,Male,22,1/3/1989

Gassam Ojjeh,Male,22

Ryan Kaputula,Male,21

Jason Akinole,Male,22,12/3/1988

Dammy Sofekun,Male,23,3/14/1988

Anthony Akueruka,Male,23,6/3/1988

Samon Adesina,Male,23,9/11/1987

Sanh Ngan,Male,24,7/31/1987

Nana Kwame Sarpong,Male,25,4/8/1986

Roxwell Yeboah,Male,33

Nosakare Aigbogun,41

Paul Obanyanyo,Male,42

Paul Obonyano,Male,49,9/26/1968

Sayon Leroy Armstrong,Male,31,2/10/

Banye Kenon,Male

Gareth Okoro,Male,30

Total 21

Muslim names – these are unlikely to be white

Samir Drissi,Male,18,3/6/1993

Arjun Tassinari,Male,18,9/7/1992

Jamaal Hakim Hislop Whall,Male,18,12/24/1992

Ali Ladji Ford,Male,18,9/25/1992

Omar Muktar Farah,Male,18,11/14/1992

Ahmed Al-jaf,Male,18,3/22/1993

Zishan Hussain,Male,18

Abdul Majid,Male,18

Amir Shar,Male,18

Beidir Amin,Male,18

Jamal Ebanks,Male,18

Samir Shah,Male,18

Taryk Claytonabdorahman,Male,

Karmail Rizvi,Male,19,

Adel Driouch,Male,19,11/11/1991

Adewumi Adebayo ,Male,19,6/3/1992

Ahmed Diakhaby,Male,19,2/20/1992

Kumail Rizvi,Male,19

Hamza Alamin Abubakar,Male,19

Quamai Nugent,Male,19

Hodan Hussain,Male,20

Abdiasis Ibrahim,Male,20

Badawi Elbadawi,Male,20,3/27/1991

Omar Talab,Male,20,6/29/1991

Abbas Larti,Male,22,2/11/1989,

Munir Zaman,Male,20

Abdullah Ansari,Male,22,5/25/1989

Ishmail Lokko ,Male,22,2/28/1989

Farshad Dousti,Male,22,3/31/1989

Imran Khan,Male,23

Youssuf Addow,Male,25,3/4/1986

Haramein Mohammed,Male,25

Ahmed Farah,Male,27

Adellah Snape,Female,30

Abdelhak Hamraoui,Male,36

Hassan Halloway,Male,39

Hamza Abubakar,Male,19

Khuram Iftikhar,,21

Adam El-wahabi,Male,21,3/30/1990

Amir Mostafa,Male,21,10/19/1989

Youssef El-idrissi,Male,19

Sallah Osman,Male,32

Dirye,Male,19,7/22/1992

Adam Ozdas,Male,19

Armin Naserbakht,Male,22,7/23/1989

Marouane Rouhi,Male,21

Mourouane Rouhi,Male,21

Daniel Ullah,Male,22

Total 48

Non-Muslim Asians

Shourov Chowdhury,Male,19,2/2/1992

Jamie Hoang,Male,19,7/1992

Donness Bissessar,21

Amerpreet Gill,Male,23

Gurmeet Tarmeet,Male,35

Total 5

Foreign European names

Peter Bugososlavsky,Male,20

Bennie Acato,Male,19,10/31/1991

Adam Sieniuc,Male,20

Mr Piotr Dziedzic,Male,22,2/27/1989

Leandro Santos Desaevasconcelos,Male,21

Lucian Trufia,Male,24

Nina Yavarianfar,Female,27

Stefan Phidd,Male,31,11/19/1979

Lee Montaldo,Male,40

Maurice Edward

Dubois,Male,41,11/23/1969

Barry Naine,Male,42,6/25/1969

Paul Raune,Male,46,6/28/1964

Sebastian Praxitelous,Male,18

Michael Caillaux,Male,18

Samuel Caillaux,Male,20

Tony Gustave,Male,33

Total 16

Those with British names who could plausibly be white or black

Kyle Smith,Male,18,4/2/1993

Miss Victoria Holmes,Female

Graeme Paton,

Christopher Edwards

Dale Siddall,Male,18

Dane Williamson

Laura Cook,Female,18,

Joseph Moran,Male,18

Liam Allan,Male,18

Michael Binns,Male,18

Ricky Gemmell,Male,18,,

Ryan  Brack,Male,18

Shane  Collett,Male,18

Lee Anthony  Slade,Male,

Sean Mitchell,Male,19,8/22/1991

Laura  Johnson,Female,19

Christopher Clark,Male,19

Callum Powell,Male,19

Carl Pine,Male,19

Charlie  Herron,Male,19

Heather Russell,Female,19

Michael Doyle,Male,19

Peter David  Morgan,Male,20,4/22/1991

Max Doran Raven,Male,19,7/30/1992

Danielle Mcshane,Female,20

Thomas Anthony Livingstone,Male,20

Curtis Burke,Male,20

David Lukeman,Male,20

John Alexander,Male,20

Oliver  Johnson,Male,20

Billy Bennett,Male,21,9/25/1989,

Billy Watson,Male,21Oliver Tetlow,Male,22

Jack Lamb,Male,22

Andrew Britten,Male,22

Clive Morris,Male,22

David O’Neil,Male,22

Gregory Coleman,Male,20

Perry Atherton,Male,20

Ronnie Whitby,Male,20

Darren Aiken,Male,21

Gavin Richard Edwards,Male,21,3/13/1990

Conrad Mcgrath,Male,21

Ricky Farrant,Male,21

Reece Mcdonagh,Male,21

Craig Moody,Male,22,1/31/1989

Fraser Giscombe,Male,22

Lee Mcaloney,Male,22

Mark Anthony Baker,Male,22

Tom Skinkis,Male,22,12/29/1988

Rhys Cleary,Male,23

James Oliver Tomlinson,Male,23,3/3/1988

Christopher James Harte,Male,23

Mr Nicolas Robinson,Male,23,8/3/1988

Christopher Hart,Male,23,

Callum Nugent,Male,23

Christopher Heart,Male,23

Luke Blakemore,Male,23

Nicholas Robinson,Male,23

Richard Mccoy,Male,23

Ross Jackson,Male,23

Jason Hedgecock,Male,24

Natasha Mavis Reid,Female,24,10/25/1986

George Austin,Male,24,11/18/1986

Linda Boyd,Female,24

Ross Lynch,Male,24

Natasha Reid,Female,24

Craig Fullerton,Male,24

Dwaine Spence,Male,24

David Gordon,Male,25,10/9/1985

David Swarbrick,Male,25

Andrew Barlow,Male,25

David Benjamin,Male,25,4/4/1986

Kieron Samuels,Male,25,8/21/1985

Mark Burns,Male,25

Barry Paisley,Male,25

Stephen Carter,Male,26, ,

John Millbanks,,26

John Joseph Millbanks,Male,26

Craig Cave,Male,26

Gareth Rees,Male,26

Liam Cornwell,Male,26

Daniel Tony Watson,Male,27,5/20/1984

Ryan Doyle,Male,27,10/17/1983

Ian Blaize,Male,27,11/10/1983

Karl Brown,Male,27

Ricky Hudson,Male,27

Michael Hayden,Male,28,2/2/1983

Karl Kaynor,Male,28,

Natalie Lee,Female,28

Eoin Flanagan,Male,28,1/1/1983

Robert Dnison,Male,28

Tony Williams,Male,30

Katie Lovett,Female,30

Julie Aldrich,Female,31,5/25/1980

Mark Phillips,Male,32

Jeffrey Ebanks,Male,32

Keith Adrian  Mitchell,Male,33,1/9/1978

Mark  Cunningham,Male,33,

Jean Brown,34

Paul Williams Newman,Male,34,8/24/1976

Stephen John Williams,Male,34,6/10/1977

Jason Matthews,Male,35,8/22/1975

Terry Payne,Male,35

Jason Matthews,Male,35

Mr Robert Wayne Campbell,Male,38,9/1/1972

Michael Wilson,Male,38

James Best,Male,38

Anthony Winder,Male,38

Jason Ullett,Male,38

William Jenkins,Male,40,5/11/1971

Joseph Levy,Male,41

Karen Anne Turner,Female,42,6/23/1969

Stuart Gallagher,Male,42

Sean Havens,Male,43

Steven Keith,Male,43

Terry Monaghan,Male,44,2/26/1967

Martin Burton,Male,44,6/19/1968

Kenneth Michael Hunnisett,Male,45

Darren Byrne,Male,46

John Mcneil,Male,46

Bernard Moore,Male,46

Michael Coffey,Male,47

Gary Herriott,Male,48

Peter Ellwood,Male,50

Ingrid Smith,Female,58

Jack Onslow,Male

126

In evaluating how many white Britons are amongst the 278 these facts need to be understood:

1. Those with double barrelled British surnames are most probably black because it has become the fashion for blacks in Britain to use both their parent’ surnames because there are so many illegitimate births and half-brothers and half-sisters in black families.

2. Those with first names such as Tyrone or Byron or standard white names spelt differently,for example Daveeed for David, are likely to be black.

3. Those with African names such as Akinole will be black unless a white woman has married an African.

4. Those of black West Indian origin or ancestry will generally have British surnames because the slaves took their masters names.  Some will have names which are indistinguishable from British names. However, they often use first names  rarely used by native Britons such as Delroy and Winston or unusual Biblical names such as Micah and Esau.

5. Those with Muslim names are unlikely to be white or native Britons. The could just conceivably be white converts or whites who have married Muslims.

6. Those with names such as Singh or Patel are most probably Asian,  although if it is a female who is older than a schoolgirl they might be white women who have married Asians.

7. Those with foreign surnames drawn from European countries will generally be white, but may well be first generation immigrants, especially if they come from Eastern European countries.

Using these criteria as a guide,  I estimate that at worst 70 of the 295 could have been white.  I say at worst primarily because there is no way of testing the question of whether some of those with traditional British names are blacks from the West Indies.   Of those who are white, a significant minority could be recent immigrants.

Not as white as they are painted

Robert  Henderson

Those of us who do not share the liberal’s ostensible love of the multicultural mess they have made of modern Britain  will be gratified to hear that  the latest communal outbreak of the Joy of Diversity has brought  the riotin’, lootin, whinin’ folk to their doorsteps.
The riots and lootfests   currently occurring throughout London and other cities  either “blessed” with large black populations or close to those which do have them  – Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bristol and Liverpool – have spread from black ghettos such as Tottenham,  Brixton and Hackney to richer areas such as Lambeth, Ealing, Notting Hill and Chalk Farm.
The last is of particular interest because Chalk Farm abuts the ancestral home of liberal bigots, Hampstead, and the rioters and looters got to the boundary of the Chalk Farm/Hampstead divide.  How the collective population of Hampstead –which is preternaturally white for an inner London borough – must be sighing with dismay that they did not personally  experience so vivid an  outbreak of the “joy”, especially as
they experience so little of it in normal times due to the terrible shortage of
black and  brown  faces  in their midst (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/how-the-well-to-do-liberals-choose-to-live-a-lesson-from-primrose-hill/).

White liberals in Notting Hill  had cause to be  especially excited. According to BBC Radio 5 (the 10.00 pm show 8 August) police warned a householder who rang them to report
looting  to stay inside his home because there were allegedly rioters going about armed with machetes.   Just think of  how he  must have shaken fit to burst  with excitement as they thought of what blacks in Africa generally do with machetes.

Enough of the funnies.  This is serious. Nothing equivalent has happened in Britain  before.  UK Race riots since the late 1950s have been restricted to the ghetto areas themselves and were much less widespread  as a consequence. Nor was there anything like
the scale of  destruction of  property or looting we are presently witnessing.  The widespread use of  arson this time is particularly striking. It would probably be necessary to go back to  the anti-Catholic  Gordon Riots of 1780 to find greater destruction of property in London.  However, the Gordon Riots were genuinely concerned with a particular political issue rather than being primarily an excuse to loot and destroy.

Why has this happened now? Thirty years of pandering to blacks by the British elite in all its guises – politicians, mediafolk, big business,  public servants and  educationalists – has taken its toll.   Blacks have  been taught that two things by Britain’s liberals: nothing is their fault and everything they do wrong  is down to ol’ whitey who just can’t stop oppressing them . On the white liberal side,  they  get their emotional rocks  off by engaging in paroxysms of white  guilt whilst cynically using  ethnic minorities  as a client class, of whom blacks are their unequivocal  favourites.  (The white working class used to be the clients of the liberal left, but that changed in the 1980s when the unions would not play ball with the Labour Party hierarchy and three successive defeats at the hands of Thatcher persuaded most Labour politicians that dumping the white working class was necessary if they were to get into power before they were on their Zimmer frames).

The response of white liberals

Initially, white liberals and blacks  claimed  that looters were protesting about the shooting dead of a black man Mark Duggan by police  in Tottenham on Thursday 4 August 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516).This response  was   obvious nonsense  – violent protest is one thing, looting quite another. Unable to write this off as a peaceful political protest gone wrong, Liberals and their black quangocracy  clients (the blacks who are  treated as “community leaders” , those who receive considerable amounts of public money to run “multicultural” projects or  given highly paid publicly funded sinecures) are in a quandary.  They know that these riots  are being conducted overwhelmingly by blacks. They know  that the general public understands this  because of the voluminous media coverage. They realise that to deny the  fact that this is a black event puts them in the position of “Comical Ali” during  the Western attack on Iraq when he denied allied attacks were  getting through  as allied planes bombed the land close behind  him.  But  they  are only too well aware that to admit the truth (that this is a black problem) would  undermine the politically correct  virtual world they have created in which everyone in a position of power or influence  in  Britain has to give lip service at least to the idea that ethnic and racial diversity is a good in itself and infinitely preferable to homogeneous societies.

Faced with this profound difficulty liberals and their ethnic minority clients have taken one of  two paths. The first mode of evasion is to portray the riots as having no racial
context and to rely on the intimidatory effect of decades of multicultural propaganda together with liberal control of the media to allow them to call black white without attracting too much public ridicule.  BBC reporters have been especially addicted to this nonsense by stressing at every opportunity that there are “people of all races” taking part in the riots. The more daring ones emphasise the fact that there are white rioters – it would be interesting to know the national origins of the few  white rioters because  eastern
Europeans  and gipsies in particular  have a liking for theft and mayhem.   Best of all the BBC  (bless their liberal bigot hearts) have repeatedly  described the rioters and looters as protestors. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8690267/London-riots-BBC-criticised-for-branding-thugs-as-protesters.html).

Getting on to BBC phone-ins to point out the black genesis of the riots has been next to impossible. On 7th August I did manage to take part fleetingly  in a phone-in on the BBC
Radio 5 Stephen Nolan programme (10.00 pm -1.00 am). After half an hour of listening to Nolan and his guests chatter happily about the riots without mentioning the racial aspect , I rang to mention  that, try as I might to believe them,  I could not help noticing that  the vast majority of the rioters were black and consequently it was not a general social problem but a black social problem. I attributed the source of the problem to  a near universal sense of victimhood amongst blacks.   I bolstered this latter judgement with the fact that I,  unlike white liberals who almost invariably arrange their lives to live in very white worlds,   have lived for most of my adult life  and live now in parts of London which have a large black  population and consequently I engage daily with blacks, many of them, shock horror! poor and  uneducated.

It took me another forty minutes to get on air,  during which time the programme continued to parade a gallery of  politically correct grotesques that included a Metropolitan Police officer who is a leading light in  the black police association.  When I eventually was allowed to broadcast  my comments provoked outrage from this individual and I was immediately cut off, most frustratingly,   before I could point out to him that he had unambiguously  identified himself as a racist by joining a black-only representative group .

Later in the programme Nolan had as studio guests  Edwina Currie (the one-time Tory Minister) and a retired suffragan bishop by the name of Stephen Lowe. Their job was to review the papers. Lowe castigated the Telegraph for having a long gallery of photographs
showing blacks rioting and looting. He objected to this because – wait for it – the coverage made it look as though this was a black riot.  Hilariously, this earned a stern rebuke from
Currie who repeatedly accused Lowe of bringing race into the equation by mentioning the racially monochrome nature of the Telegraph photos.   Not to worry, the Telegraph made up for this terrible blunder  next day by publishing a series of photos released by the police of rioters. Guess the colour of the first rioter shown. Yes, that’s right, he is white. As was the person in the  third photo. Sadly, the pretence of it being a racially neutral riot could not be sustained and the rest of the 14 photos were overwhelmingly black.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html).   The Telegraph have continued to disgrace themselves in politically correct eyes by printing another series of black villains in their 9 August issue.

The early signs from court appearances resulting from the riots suggest there is something very odd going on when it comes to the application of the law.  As anyone can see from the media coverage,  the vast majority of rioters are black, but the number of those  appearing in court who are white is much  greater than  their proportion of the rioters and looters. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024767/Man-charged-riot-incitement-Facebook-London-rioters-guilty.html#ixzz1UjYYfl00)

I suspect one of two things is happening: either the police have concentrated on arresting white rioters because they  are (1) unlike the black culprits, often not part of a gang of rioters/looters and (2) arresting them does not cause any ethnic mayhem . Alternatively, the police/CPS are deliberately pushing white cases to the front of the queue to give the
false  impression that the rioters are not overwhelmingly black.   The other thing which looks suspicious is the routine showing of black rioters  in groups and whites in what look like cropped photos in which a single person is shown. These could be  extracted from scenes showing one white rioter amongst a crowd of blacks.

The other general  liberal tactic is to blame it all on economics and preferably Tory cuts. This has the advantage of leaving race out of it altogether.   Harriet Harman, a minister in both the Blair and Brown Governments, was sure that this was linked to  the rioting and looting. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100100392/harriet-harman-and-the-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-progressive-left/). Mary Riddle, a Labour Party media groupie employed by the supposedly Tory Daily Telegraph,  was in no doubt that the  riots are due to social deprivation in general and the creation of an uneducated underclass in particular: “London’s riots are not the Tupperware troubles of Greece or Spain, where the middle classes lash out against their day of reckoning. They are the proof that a section of young Britain – the stabbers, shooters, looters, chancers and their frightened acolytes – has fallen off the cliff-edge of a crumbling nation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html.

If  Harman and Riddle were correct all poor areas would be susceptible to this behaviour and most of the rioters would be white.  This is not the case. The reality is that the criminality is, as anyone can see from the press and TV, overwhelmingly being perpetrated by blacks. Moreover, the first of the rioting arose in black ghettos.  Most tellingly, no  town or city which does not have a  substantial black population or such a population close by  has seen rioting.  This also gives the lie to the claim from the Conservative side that  the riots are down to the  lax discipline in schools and the undermining  of parental authority  which has produced a generation of youngsters without respect for the law or any authority .

Clearly the causes  of these riots lie in something other than poverty, a lack of school discipline  or poor parenting.   Ostensibly the behaviour is caused by 30 years of our  elite pandering to the black population of Britain by telling them how oppressed they are and how racist Britain is. This has undoubtedly stoked their appetite for victimhood and given
them a belief that they owe nothing to society in general. That gives them the moral release to riot and loot.

The black response to the killing of Mark Duggan demonstrates the difference between blacks and whites. The police in Britain kill very few people compared with virtually anywhere else, not least because they are not routinely armed.  Most of those they  kill are white. Violent protests or protests of any sort rarely if ever occur when the person killed is white because whites still trust the police (just) to behave reasonably . When a  black man is killed it is assumed by blacks that it is tantamount to a murder and violent protest is more often than not the eventual outcome.   It remains to be seen what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report concludes about the Duggan shooting, but if as has been reported  by the media Duggan had a gun on him it is difficult to see how the police could be criticised for killing him if he either had it in his hand or it was near him and he was reaching for it when he was shot .

But there is a deeper problem. Blacks display the same general type of uncontrolled  behaviour in societies of very different types throughout the world, whether it be where
they are in the racial majority or minority, in an advanced industrial country or one from the depths of the Third World. There is genocide and mutilation  in places such as Rwanda and Sierra Leone; rioting, looting and episodic murder in Britain.  The degree of misbehaviour may vary but  its general type is the same; a lack of self-control  expressing itself in gratuitous violence.

That places the victimhood justification for misbehaviour in Britain in a different light. It is simply a rationalisation of general black social behaviour.  Why do blacks tend to  behave like this?  Part at least of the answer is  probably to be  found in the inferior average  IQ of blacks.  In IQ and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations (2002), the British psychologist Richard Lynn and  the Finish economist Tatu Vanhanan  included their  estimations of the average national IQs of 185 states .  They reached the estimates
either by using studies of IQs conducted by others or where these were not available, by extrapolating from neighbouring countries which did have IQ studies.  For example, if the estimate based on studies of country X was 80, a  neighbouring country Y which had no studies would also be taken as 89. In the case of all black African countries  the estimated average IQ  was 69. (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp).

Such a low average black IQ was unsurprisingly greeted by  widespread disbelief and objections were raised  about the validity of the studies used and the practice of extrapolating from other countries where no studies existed .  In 2006 Lynn and Vanhanan published IQ and Global Inequality which addressed the objections and,  while not removing them altogether, did show that  the correlation between the imputed
IQs  and IQ studies of the states in question  made after 2002 were strong (.91) (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%202008%20book%20review%20IQ%20and%20global%20inequality.pdf).

But even without the African studies and estimates, it is known that black IQs are inferior to those of whites or East Asians such as the Chinese.  The average American black IQ is a well established 85, considerably higher than the 70 of black Africans but still way below the average white IQ of 100. Moreover, black Americans have a large admixture of white genes, so an average IQ between the black African and the white American average IQ is
exactly what would be expected if it is granted that IQ is strongly dependent on genetic inheritance.  It is reasonable to assume the blacks in the US without a white admixture would have an average IQ closer to the 70 estimated  for black Africans.

What is the consequence of such a low average IQ? The first thing to understand is that people with low I Qs are not monsters but simply people who have a different level of
mental competence. They have less capacity for abstract thinking, are more literal minded, live more in the present . In short, they are childlike.  This makes them more susceptible to
irrational and uncontrolled behaviour http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/blacks-the-odd-man-out/).  This could be the root of the strong propensity for violence and a lack of social awareness seen amongst blacks. Other factors such as higher testosterone levels in blacks may also have some effect.

But there could also be another factor in play which is a corollary of the low IQ. Someone with a low IQ  may  find living in an advanced society  extremely stressful because they
cannot cope with the intellectual demands which the society exerts on them. It is interesting that some types of mental illness are linked to low IQ (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/a-low-iq-individual-in-a-high-iq-society/).  This could be part of the reason at least  for the fact that  diagnosis of  mental illness, especially schizophrenia, amongst blacks is high in Britain. It is claimed by some, especially educated blacks,  that this is due to racism within the  British mental health services. This is  difficult to take this seriously in these pc times. If diagnosis of mental illeness was to be skewed by bias it would be more likely to result in fewer diagnoses of mental illness amongst blacks not more. Plausibly, blacks become disproprotionately mentally ill in Britain  simply because they cannot cope.  The paranoia  engendered
by the victimhood fostered by white liberals will not help their mental state either. (http://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=139).

The emasculation of the police

The most chilling thing about reports from the scene of the riots and looting has been the persistent claims of those at the scene but not part of the criminality that there  is either an  absence of any police or where there were any police,  they were ineffective.

If the first riot in Tottenham had been quashed there is a good chance that the others might not have happened or have  been much less serious.  Quashing a single riot should have been within the power of the Met which has more than 30,000 officers, not immediately but within an hour or two after they had re-directed  officers from other parts of London.  Instead the police in Tottenham  stood back and watched the looters  for many hours.

Why have the police been so supine? It  is primarily a consequence of  the injection of political correctness into police officers’ minds with its most potent strand being “anti-racism”. A lesser secondary cause is the ever more stifling culture of “health and Safety” which the police have embraced . (see  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13319812
and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/42/contents). This has resulted in the police putting their own safety before that of the public, a straight reversal of  what used to be the case. Effective  policing system cannot operate on such a basis.

The British elite’s  official pandering to ethnic minorities  goes back to 1965 when the first Race Relations Act (RRA) was passed followed by a second  stronger Act in 1968 which was one of the things which provoked Enoch Powell to make his “Rivers of Blood” speech in the same year. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/enoch-powells-rivers-of-blood-speech/). A third RRA with considerably more teeth arrived in 1976 which elevated ethnic minorities to a de facto protected status,  not only by  strengthening the penalties for “inciting racial hatred”  but by its provision of  a wide range of  privileges to ethnic minorities in the areas of work, education  and social provision.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74)

Then came the Scarman report into the Brixton Riots of 1981. Lord Scarman  did not accuse the Metropolitan Police of racism,  but called for the development of community policing, the recruitment of more black officers and laid part of the blame for the riots on social deprivation, particularly the high rate of unemployment in Brixton. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm)
This began the long march towards  the police policing ethnic minority areas not on the basis of what crime was occurring in them,  but what they could get “community leaders” – who tended to be self-appointed – to agree to and the ascribing of virtually  any black
behaviour to deprivation.

The next and longest  nail in the coffin of rigorous policing of blacks (and ethnic minorities generally) came with the Macpherson report into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm).  Macpherson accused the Metropolitan Police of being “institutionally racist”, that is racist not consciously but through the prevailing  ethos (“canteen culture”)
within the force, an accusation which was eventually embraced wholeheartedly by the Met followed by all the other UK police forces. Macpherson defined racism and institutional racism as:

‘RACISM

6.4 “Racism” in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which advantage or disadvantage people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form.

6.34 “Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’

A  good examination of the ill effects of  the acceptance of the existence of “institutional racism” can be found at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs06.pdf).

Macpherson also provided an absurd and dangerous definition of what constituted racist behaviour which should be investigated:

DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT

12. That the definition should be:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

‘13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.

‘14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies.’

This meant that any complainant who was malicious or simply burdened with a sense of victimhood could turn an ordinary crime into one which was racist or even worse turn an incident which had no meaningful criminal content into a criminal act.

Macpherson continued:

‘REPORTING AND RECORDING OF RACIST INCIDENTS AND CRIMES

15. That Codes of Practice be established by the Home Office, in consultation with Police Services, local Government and relevant agencies, to create a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes.

16. That all possible steps should be taken by Police Services at local level in consultation with local Government and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes. This should include:

– the ability to report at locations other than police stations; and

– the ability to report 24 hours a day.

17. That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education Departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies….’

And

‘PROSECUTION OF RACIST CRIMES

‘34. That Police Services and the CPS should ensure that particular care is taken at all stages of prosecution to recognise and to include reference to any evidence of racist motivation. In particular it should be the duty of the CPS to ensure that such evidence is referred to both at trial and in the sentencing process (including Newton hearings). The CPS and Counsel to ensure that no “plea bargaining” should ever be allowed to
exclude such evidence. ‘ (Ibid)

To put the cherry on  pc policing, in 2000 the Blair Government passed the Race Relations
(Amendment) Act . This extended the obligations laid down in the 1976 Act for private bodies such as companies and charities to the police and other public  authorities  so that “ It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act  which constitutes discrimination.   (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34).

Faced with that battery of multiculturalism supporting law and the ever more fervent support of  the political elite for political correctness,   unsurprisingly  the British police became  paranoid about being seen as “racist”. The “anti-discrimination ” credo has put any officer judged to have been racist – and this might be no more than a bit of banter suggesting that a black officer is difficult to see in the dark  – at the risk of instant dismissal. It has also given a lever for non-white officers with the police to go on the
grievance trail (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/217239_43_gmp_officers_in_police_racism_claims).
The upshot is that police officers from newly minted constables  to grandees such as chief constables and the Metropolitan police commissioner  have become not only extremely  of what they say,  but reluctant to act forcefully against suspected black  criminals.  This reluctance is particularly marked in situations such as riots where they know they will be  filmed by the mainstream media and  private individuals.

In 1989 the Metropolitan Police changed its title from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service.  Other police forces followed suit.  The change of name is symbolic of the  profound  change in attitude.  The British police moved from being keepers of the peace and catchers of criminals to quasi-social workers crossed with political commissars who are ever eager to enforce political correctness by investigating
any alleged “hate crime” even though the idea of a hate crime only has a spectral
existence in English law.    No absurdity is beyond them  as shopkeeper Gavin Alexander found in 2007 when the police swooped on his shop and took several golliwog dolls into custody (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-police-seize-golliwogs-in-racism-probe.do).

Needless to say, as political commissars the police are less than eager to investigate complaints  which do not fit into the pc regime. In 2001 I made a complaint to the Racial and Violent Crime Squad against the BBC Director-General Greg Dyke who described his own organisation as “Hideously white”.  This met all the necessary criteria for prosecution:  Dyke was a public figure, he headed the largest media organisation in the world and his words indubitably incited hatred against whites.  The police refused to register the complaint let alone investigate it even,  though I persuaded an MP to write to the Met complaining about double standards (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/the-ever-increasing-madness-of-political-correctness/).

The future

The situation is potentially  very serious. Imagine a situation where riots and looting such as these could be called up regularly without an adequate police response. It would be close to anarchy.  This is what we risk. Potential rioters and looters have seen the police reduced to helplessness. They will think they can do it again whenever they choose.

This was flash mob rioting using social networking. Those on a network simply need to wait until they receive a message telling them where  the next meeting point for a riot
is and head for it.  They get their loot and riot, then get another message telling them to move on elsewhere. The police can be run ragged. The same applies to any violent political protest rather than straightforward criminality. Any society can be reduced to chaos if enough people refuse to respect the law.  That is the message which comes out of these riots.

What will happen now? Even if the police could identify them, the numbers  are too great to bring to meaningful justice. Numbers are always difficult to assess where there is a fluid crowd, but the sheer volume  of riots and the length of time they have lasted must mean there have been thousands of people committing criminal acts.  Even if each incident only involved a couple of hundred people it would be easy to run up a figure of 10,000.  Many of the crimes – arson, serious criminal damage, serious theft – would have to carry a heavy prison sentence if  adequate punishment is to be administered.  To  process that number of people through a police investigation, the  Crown Prosecution Service and the courts would be a colossal task. Those who are old enough to remember the Poll Tax fiasco will recall how the magistrates courts became choked trying to process Poll Tax refuseniks.  This would be much worse because the crimes would all go before a jury in the higher
unless a guilty plea is entered.  There would also be the strong likelihood of appeals, something which did not arise often in the case of a refusal to pay  the Poll Tax.
Even if these problems  could be overcome, there would be no obvious place to incarcerate those convicted because our prisons are already so jam-packed everything is done to avoid
imprisoning people and desperate remedies such as letting prisoners out early a frequent resort.

If  people are not brought to justice or are brought to justice without any serious
punishment  resulting , the numbers of those who   are willing to riot and loot
will grow.  This will drag in blacks who have not been willing to loot and riot before.
It will also tempt other ethnic minorities to join in on the basis that if the blacks can get away with it why shouldn’t  they  have some of the spoils. A proportion of whites will also be tempted if they see ethnic minorities getting away with murder.  That is the truly pernicious nature of what is happening:  it continually encourages more disorder.

The point to cling onto is that without the mass immigration of blacks none of this would be happening. If some whites are engaging in the disorder it is only because the black rioters have provided the platform for them to behave in that way.  We can safely say that because rioting to loot just has not happened in British society when there was no large black population here. Nor do we find such rioting happening in areas dominated by native white Britons.

The riots have all taken place in England. The reason is simple: the vast majority
of  post-1945 immigrants have settled in England not the rest of the UK. It is the English who have had to bear the brunt of  mass immigration’s most obnoxious consequences.

What should be done? I suggest this. All attempts by government to appease ethnic minority groups should stop. No more money for community leaders, ethnic based charities or public projects which promote the interests only of minority ethnic groups.  All the laws such as the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
which give de facto privileges to ethnic minorities and prevent honest objections to immigration and its consequences should be repealed.  The police should be banned from playing the role of political commissars and get back to honest coppering; catching villains
and maintaining order. Institutionalised political correctness should be stripped from public service  and any organisation which receives public money.
Most importantly, politicians and the mainstream media should  stop incontinently  promoting the liberal fantasy of multicultural heaven and recognise that it is not heaven but at best purgatory.

What will the Coalition Government do?   Sadly, the odds must be on more appeasement
of blacks in particular and probably ethnic minorities in general.   Over the past 30 years  vast sums of taxpayers’ money has been poured into appeasing blacks and Asians.   A
good example is the permitting of Housing Associations which, overtly or covertly,  provide social housing for particular ethnic groups (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/).  In addition to spending money, politicians and the mainstream  media have given a grossly disproportionate amount of time and publicity to telling blacks and Asians how valuable they are to Britain.  Like foreign Aid, the attempts to create
a  healthy society by pouring money into alienated and naturally separate communities are doomed. They  simply take the money and attention and then ask for more of the same without becoming any more responsible either individually or to the wider society . They will undoubtedly be coming back for largesse and attention  now and  it is difficult to imagine a political class which has wholeheartedly  signed up to the wonders of diversity  refusing them another hand-out. Perhaps the moving of the Joy of Diversity into the districts inhabited by white liberals will change their  public views  but do not bet on it.  They are well aware of the ill-effects of mass immigration which is the reason they take such care to live in very white worlds themselves.  Provided they can arrange things to keep the immigrants from intruding into their own lives they will probably keep quiet and carry on peddling the same tired multicultural nonsense.

Those who still think that multiculturalism can work need to understand that not only is it more psychologically comfortable for minorities to remain separate, but that it can be advantageous if the host community is soft enough to pander to it.

See also

(http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-position-of-minorities/.

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/black-and-asian-cultural-separatism-in-the-uk/

No 10 Downing Street e-petitions dealing with Immigration, the EU and the ECHR

Robert Henderson

The Government scheme for e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/) which the public can initiate and/or vote on is now live. If a petition can garner 100,000 votes in a maximum of a year, Parliament will then consider whether to  debate the subject of the petition.  Although there is no guarantee of a debate, it would be politically  difficult to refuse one because a failure to debate an issue would nakedly reveal  the scheme as  simply a piece of political elite PR.

There are already quite a  few petitions, the large majority being serious. The most popular subjects are those which the British political class wish they could censor out of public debate: immigration, race, foreign aid, Islam, the EU,  the corruption of the political class, warmongering, weakness in punishing criminals, the death penalty, the harassment of motorists, the cost of transport  and the imbalance of the devolution settlement with England left high and dry without a political class to look after her interests.

There is a good deal of duplication, not least because the search function is poor and it is difficult to see exactly what has been put up by other people.  Nonetheless, it gives a good idea of what the public is most  interested in.

Below are links to the petitions which deal with immigration in all its forms, the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights  in all its manifestations which have already been sanctioned at this date. Where there are misspellings or typos, this is because those moderating the submissions are putting them up on the site without correction.

Immigration

End mass immigration View

Stop ALL immigration into the UK View

An immediate Ban on immigration from outside of the EEC View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Abolish the residual categories of British nationality View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Asylum seekers should should be given temporary refuge and should return to their own country as soon as circumstances allow View

Benefits for immigrants View

Benefits for non-UK residents View

Resident Permits for Immigrants View

To opt out of the Human Rights legislation View

Abolish Islam in the UK View

English Law, Not Shariah Law View

European Union

European Law View

Leave the European Union View

We Want To Withdraw From The EU View

Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 View

European Sovereignty Act View

Repatriation of Powers from the European Union View

Britain wants referendum to leave EU View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Referendum on the Accession of Turkey to the EU View

Referendum on accession of Croatia to the EU View

Remove the EU flag from British number plates View

Reduction in payments to EU View

Cost/Benefit Analysis of EU Membership View

Human Rights  (ECHR)

Repeal The European Courts Human Rights Act View

withdraw from the european human rights act View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View

Withdraw from the European Human Rights Commission View

Human Rights Act & the ECHR. View

Human Rights Act View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human Rights Act should be revoked. View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human right legislation View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View