If we are going to face up to the mess our country is in then we need to be honest. This means that facts must not be spun to suit a particular agenda. The media prefers to propagandise with social and political myths that are not based in reality, but by repeating them often enough they are able to convince the general population that they are true. Here is one myth – almost all victims of violent racist attacks are from an ethnic minority. How many times have we been given the impression this must be true? Yet in fact the statistics of the British Crime Survey show that it is very far from reflecting reality. But we need to deal with reality, otherwise we are trying to fix the wrong problems.
Don’t get me wrong. Every single violent racist attack is abhorrent and should be prosecuted as much as all violent crimes should be. It is proper to sympathise with every innocent victim. And even where violent and abusive gangs on some of our sink estates have decided to beat each other up, it is also proper to think that choosing skin colour or ethnic origin as the sole determining factor is a pretty stupid one. But it’s a matter of fact that the perception that white people are not the subjects of racist violence is plain wrong, and if it is plain wrong then it means that all manner of social and political activities to deal with violent racist attacks is being misdirected.
I first saw this issue highlighted on the British Patriots Society website, but it seemed much too far from the view that we constantly see in the media, and hear from politicians, to be true. Having downloaded the official Home Office report on Black and Minority Ethnic group’s experience of racially motivated crime, which is based on the 2004/2005 British Crime Survey, it is easy to confirm that not only is the British Patriots Society post entirely correct, but that the misrepresentation of violent racist crime is continuing to the present time.
The very title of the report indicates that something is wrong. The authors of the report are only concerned with the experience of Black and Minority Ethnic groups in regard to racist violence. Now we probably assume, as we may be expected to, that there are so few racist attacks on white people that it has not been worthwhile including them. But in fact the Home Office report shows that for the period in question there were 75,400 incidents of racially motivated violence against white people, 3,300 incidents of racially motivated violence against mixed-race people, 28,500 incidents of racially motivated violence against asian people, 7,300 incidents of racially motivated violence against black people and 8,400 incidents of racially motivated violence against chinese people. These are the categories which the Home Office report uses.
So while the report ignores the experience of white people in its title, we find that 75,400 incidents of racist violence had white victims while only 47,500 had Black and Minority Ethnic victims. It needs to be said again, it is not a competition about which ethnic groups are most victimised. It would be better that no people were the victims of racist violence. But the statistics as released by the Government show clearly that far from never being the victims of racist violence, in fact white victims are in the majority. If Government departments are assuming that white people are not the subjects of racist violence then they will not be adopting appropriate policies, nor targeting funding and other resources in the right places.
The situation is much worse than these two statistics indicate however. Because the population of people of white ethnicity is so much larger than that of the BME groups we would expect many more violent racist assaults to be conducted against BME people if the rate of racist violence were equal in both white and BME groups. There are 8.5 times more white people than BME people. So if the rate of racist violence were equal then in the case of 47,500 incidents of racist violence against BME people, we would expect only 5,500 incidents of racist violence against white people. But there are 75,400 incidents of racist violence against white people recorded, which suggests that the BME groups are over 13 times more likely to commit racist violence.
If we stick with the maths a little longer we see that it is even worse. It is possible to work out how many incidents of racist violence are committed against white people by members of BME groups, but the incidents recorded against Asian people, for instance, are not all perpetrated by white people. Some will have involved Black, Mixed or Chinese assailants. Likewise some Black people will have been attacked by Asian assailants rather than white. But all the white victims will have been assaulted by BME attackers. This means that rather than being 13 times more likely to be involved as the perpetrators of racist violence, BME members are more than 13 times likely to be perpetrators. It would be reasonable to conclude that they are 15 or even 20 times over-represented based on the difference in population sizes.
The Home Office report disguises this important fact of racist violence. It combines racist violence with all incidents considered racist. Therefore someone yelling a racist insult across the street is counted the same as someone violently assaulting a person. And a person using racist abuse on a tube, where there may be 10 or 20 victims of a racist incident, are being counted together with the one person chased by a gang and beaten up in a stairwell. If we restrict ourselves to violent crime, surely the most serious form of racism, then we see that the members of the BME groups predominate as perpetrators, and the members of white ethnicity predominate as victims, turning the popular representation of racism on its head.
Undoubtedly there is a continuing need to act against violent racism committed by members of white ethnic groups against members of the BME groups. But the much greater responsibility and requirement is surely for Government, Police, Education and other departments and agencies to target the racism found in BME groups, where it is much more prevalent. Violent racism directed at white people, and by members of the BME groups against other subgroups of the BME category. We know that the Government, the Media and various pseudo-charitable bodies do not take this seriously because we have not seen white people and white families on the TV describing the violence they have endured, nor have we seen any white person elevated to the status of being a popular spokesperson for racism. It seems as though white people cannot by definition be the subjects of racist violence.
But the statistics tell a different story, and require a different direction to Government action, otherwise we are not being honest with ourselves and about our society. And we will not be able to fix it if we do not accurately diagnose what is wrong.
The motives for unprovoked violence on anybody should be irrelevant; the acts themselves should be prosecuted and punished for the violence involved per se;
Whether it’a threat of assault, common assault, causing actual bodily harm, wounding, grievous bodily harm, manslaughter or murder, the severity of the sentence should relate to the severity of the violence, not the caussation. The way things have progressed over the past few years, racial preference or resentment is now generally considered more serious than the violence of thuggery. That is both stupid and counter-productive. If the mores of the day insist that we should ignore skin colour or other racial characteristics in our daily interface, then law enforcement and the judiciary should ignore it also and deal with the crux of the matter. Unprovoked violence is forbidden by law. That is the point of the law; not to force people to like people of another race, but to deter assault or punish it when it takes place other than if self defence or war – which amounts to the same thing.
“…If the mores of the day insist that we should ignore skin colour or other racial characteristics in our daily interface, then law enforcement and the judiciary should ignore it also and deal with the crux of the matter…”
But they don’t. And that, the result of Labour’s social engineering and the introduction of motive, not actual harm, as the test of a crime is responsible for the destruction of the British justice system and any sense of fairness within it.
How does one judge the level of ‘hate’ in another?
Of course it can’t be done. And even if it could what difference does it make? It’s of no consequence when you hit someone over the head with an iron bar. What matters is hitting them, not why.
And the test for ‘hate’ crime is to ask the victim whether he thinks this was the motive. And so we pile subjectivity upon subjectivity, upon impenetrably dense ‘laws’ created by Dept of Justice ‘guidance’ to their meaning. A true recipe for totalitarianism.
Should a lack of ‘hate’ mean a reduction in the sentence imposed? Of course not! That is just the basic ungarnished crime. Let’s soup it up to suit the malign purposes of the many interest group that the subject population has been divided up into.
After all, if you can command a group of voters you’re an interest group and there’ll be a politician interested in your interests.
More than anything thing else, amongst the many evil things done to us by Antony Blair and New Labour, the Orwellian concept of ‘hate crime’ must be the most pernicious.
Read “Hating Whitey” by David Horowitz. A scarily frank book on anti white hatred in the United States. The leftist denial of such is lurching the US towards civil war. All too often in the book, I find myself making dorect comparisons with here in the UK. It HAS GOT TO STOP
Slightly off topic, for which i apologise, but why do the BBC have an asian network. There is no white network, or afro-caribeen network, so why an asian one. Surely the existance of the asian network is in fact racist, and its existence challenged?
I wonder if those statistics tell anything like the truth. Apart from being racially abused on a small number of occasions in London’s wonderfully vibrant and diverse Walthamstow I was once attacked while with my young son.
I reported the racist attack as the offence took place very close to a school and outside a nursery (where I was taking him).
The police did turn up but neither recorded the assault nor that it was racist as I did not have serious injuries (only bruising) and because the assailant had been in the middle of a series of more vicious assaults and robberies (on white and asian women) and he was allegedly ‘mental’. (He wasn’t so mental that he changed clothes in the middle of his little spree though)
So……. IMNVHO the stats are likely to understate the degree of black on white crimes.
a\lexsandr
April 28th, 2013 – 11:19
…and why is there a Black Police organisation, but not a White Police organisation? Because if there was, it would be defined as racist!
Hexham, I am sure you are right that the numbers of racist assaults on whites is even higher. But I think it interesting that even when the socialist state skews the statistics they can’t hide the massive over-representation of BME violence nor the high numbers of white victims.
Under whose premiership (I almost wrote “regime”) did the race of the victim begin to be recorded and the results tallied up? Does anyone remember? Probably under the same premiership that allowed the “Black Police Officers” – or whatever it’s called – organisation to be formed.
Whoever it was, that individual should be tried for treason.
Noa 10:10 – Send this post to Nigel. It perfectly encapsulates the evil that has been wrought by the communist hegemony that has been ruling Britain for the last 20 years. Please send it.
And the vile, undemocratic Black Police Officers Assn should be disbanded, or there should be a White Police Officers Association and an Islamic Police Officers Assn and … how did they miss this one? – a Female Police Officers Association. (I am sure it would be grievance-laden within a week.)
Alexandr – I believe the Asian network broadcasts to Asia in Asian languages.
PS … And when it was founded, “Asia” meant Asia. It wasn’t a dainty disguise for “Paki”.
The BBC, and this is another of my grievances against them, has so subverted the meaning of “Asian” that it now, instead of meaning India, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, China, Korea, Japan, Tibet and so on, now means either Paki or terrorist, often both at the same time.
…And a Ginger Police Organisation, and a Fatso Police Organisation, and most importantly, a Keystone Kops Organisation 😉
Why are Pakis and other mohammad groupies referred to by the name of a vast continent in the media – especially the BBC -, yet we are referred to by our nationality. (Rhetorical question, needless to say.)
Actually, the BBC should not have the word “British” in its name! It is too specific! It should be the Caucasian Broadcasting Company. Or the European Broadcasting Company.
anne wotana kaye
April 28th, 2013 – 14:40
The already have a ginger police association, ask any cockney.
Frank P
April 28th, 2013 – 23:34
Frank, I am left with egg on my face!
Verity@April 28th, 2013 – 14:29
no,V. it was spawned by BBC local radio in brum and leicester.It is now a digital station for british asians. I believe it is sometimes rebroadcast by some BBC local radio stations.
in this context asian means from the indian sub-continent, not asia as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Asian_Network
Alexandr – NSS! That was my whole point.
I’ve been mugged five times, assaulted once and ripped off numinous times, by people who may have had an ancestral linage that can trace its records back to Africa. Burgled twice by the same young people with a look one might associate with those from the former USSR countries. But I’ve been too scared to say.
BBC Radio Leeds changes on Medium wave at 6pm
from English to Urdu, Nufsed!
Rock solid evidence clearly shows that White people suffer more at the hands of other races than do other Races at the hands of Whites. This reality is casually ignored by the Media. Europe is in danger of being over-run by immigrants of one sort or another and yet any word of protest is not received as being plain common sense but as racism or bigotry. If a tiny island like Britain, which is already the most densely populated country in Europe, with a population of sixty million, cannot manage without bringing in three-hundred-thousand immigrants a year, at what point will they be forced admit failure and start paying the correct salary for the jobs the British will not do?