Rod Liddle: A twat in a new way

Rod Liddle has had his racist blog post for the Spectator censured by the PCC.

He wrote a poisonous blog post, which drew much ire from left and right, stating as fact that:

“the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.”

Rod Liddle is now officially wrong. It long ago became clear that he was factually wrong, but it is nice to see him slapped on the wrists.

What is particularly interesting from my point of view is the craven defence offered by The Spectator to the PCC.

The magazine provided some evidence to substantiate the figures: a BBC report, which quoted an Inspector in the Trident Unit of the Metropolitan police as saying that ‘for three out of every four shootings…in London, the victim and the perpetrator are from the black community’; a Daily Mail article, which reported that ‘124 out of 225 under-18s legally proceeded against for knife offences in the past three months are from the black community’; and a Sunday Times report which stated that ‘71% of people accused of mobile phone theft were black…’

Here we have a vague quotation of a quotation of an unsubstantiated claim with regard to shootings in the capital. The Spectator have either not got in contact with the Inspector in the Trident Unit in question or did so and couldn’t get him to repeat his claim.

The Daily Mail article claiming that 55% of those “legally proceeded against” for knife offences in the past three months are from the black community is spurious for a number of reasons.

First of all, this refers to court proceedings not convictions something which is clearly different  to what Liddle discussed. Secondly it refers to a three month period. Let me cut up data any way I like and I will prove all sorts of things.

Last of all we have a story from The Sunday Times on arrests, not convictions. It refers to arrests not “crimes… carried out” by young black me and is therefore categorically not evidence in support of Rod Liddle’s statement, yet it was still submitted by The Spectator.

Perhaps it needs to be made clear, but a disproportionate number of arrests could indicate a disproportionate presence of prejudice on behalf of the arresters, not a disproportionate tendency to criminality. Or perhaps it indicates a little of both, but come what may, it is still certainly not evidence in support of Rod Liddle.

    The Spectator is often accused of giving conservatives a bad name and I have to agree. The arguments offered are not only weak in that none of them support what Rod Liddle actually said but each appears to only be obfuscate the matter at hand.

    To defend one of its writers The Spectator will confuse one of the most basic principles of a free society; that you are innocent until proven guilty.

    For those more moved by empirical matters you should be appalled by their patent abuse of data to imply that a three month record on knife crime proceedings can be indicative of the crimes committed by any section of a society.

    Perhaps the ever excellent, erudite and (the only) genuinely interesting writer at The Spectator Alex Massie should reconsider Paul and Dave‘s offer and up sticks and leave the dreadful rag.

    Advertisements

    63 thoughts on “Rod Liddle: A twat in a new way

    1. To be clear, I am not a huge fan of Berkshire as it contains Newbury, which is a hell hole but, glad to see this classic racist meme taken to the cleaners. The number of daft racists that trot this out as fact is annoying, so glad to see the PC conspiracy silence another voice of reason/absolute bigoted idiocy.

      1. careful there Danny boy, you’re forgetting the joys that are the tourist traps of royal windsor and, erm, the people’s republic of slough – don’t alienate the good theatre-going public, now!

        But on the issue of race/crime I agree with LO that statistics don’t provide either the full story or any background context, so they shouldn’t be taken as gospel, but neither is that to say they should be dismissed automatically.

        There remain clear differences in educational achievement (among other things) between various groups and a variety of other demographic measures provide indications that certain correlations may be expected to be drawn.

        So perhaps it should be necessary to demonstrate the linkage with social, economic or cultural arguments as an alternative to counter racial arguments effectively, rather than just being complacent about the problems facing society.

        Because as far as I’m concerned the threat presented by bigotry is mirrored in equal force by that of complacency and anyone who disagrees is just attempting to excuse their own guilt.

        And despite Liddle’s blatant bias and slipshod analysis at least he was pushing for some sort of solution.

        1. Heh, I’ve always had a hard time of it in Newbury, it has 4 theatres in all but no one likes theatre there, never had a good show in Newbury and played there 3 times now.

          I’m sure the rest of Berkshire is just lovely though…

          1. As an occasional theatre-goer there I would say maybe it depended on the show.

            Audiences there tend to be quite provincial in taste and need to be tickled rather than shaken up – what were the plays?

            1. The problem in Newbury is it has too many theatres and not enough theatre goers to fill the seats, so a show that ran for 3 weeks in the West End I was in and sold out managed 6 tickets at the Corn Exchange, or a comedy show I did about immigration that played to packed houses across the UK, managed 21 people in Newbury.

              I’ve done plenty of provincial but apathy or over-sell runs rife in Newbury.

    2. The mistake that the Spectator made was in relying upon other media reports when presenting its case, rather than the government’s own statistics.

      Data contained in the so-called ‘Section 95’ report which is issued annually by the Justice Department indicate that 75.7% of the serious crimes (including crimes of violence) for which convictions were obtained in Crown Court in England and Wales, and which ethnicity was recorded, were committed by white people. 13% were committed by blacks, 7.1% by Asians and 4.2% by ‘other’, the last including persons of ‘Middle Eastern, Chinese, Japanese or Southeast Asian appearance’, according to the official definition included with the report.

      The S.95 report also provides a racial breakdown of the general population as follws: white 91.3%, black 2.8%, Asian 4.7 and ‘other’ 1.2%. From this it is simple to derive the extent of over- or under-representation of each racial group in the serious crime statistics. Whites commit 83% of the serious crime that might be expected from their representation in the general population, blacks 460%, Asians 151% and ‘other’ 263%.

      These figures are for England and Wales but there is no reason to believe that those for the Metropolitan Police force area are any different.

      Liddle was obviously on the right track, he just didn’t express the argument particularly, and the Spectator was amiss in not straightening that out. But the essential truth of the assertion was correct – ethnics do exhibit a greater propensity to commit serious (and violent) crime.

      1. If that is the case then why state it in such a way as to enflame generalised racial arguments, rather than to look at the specific social, economic, cultural and environmental conditions influencing crime or to provide a balancing context?

        Property and violent crime has a disproportionate impact on individuals, but is it a greater threat to social progress than the white-collar crimes like fraud and market manipulation that affect society as a whole?

        Property and violent crime also tends to occur more in urban areas, which happens to be where non-white groups live in greater concentration, so wouldn’t this suggest the proportionality of crimes perpetrated by different ethnic groups is distorted by geographic bias?

        Equally criminality varies according to class and other factors, so when you start to account for them the racial aspect begins to diminish to virtual irrelevance. But I guess that depends upon being able to look beyond face values.

    3. Oranjepan wrote:

      *why enflame generalised racial arguments*

      Like most of colleagues in the MSM Liddle is a lazy hack who relies upon other hacks for his sources, but that doesn’t deflect the general thrust of the argument. Liddle just wasn’t able to properly articulate it, that’s all. In truth, the official statistics are damning enough, there is no need for flamboyant rhetoric.

      *fraud and market manipulation*

      Fraud and forgery is one of the serious crime categories which are considered indictable offences and therefore tried in Crown Court. As a matter of fact, non-whites are particularly over-represented in convictions for such crimes (460% overall; 1022% for blacks).

      *urban concentrations of non-white groups*

      That doesn’t seem to have any direct correlation to the local level of ethnic criminality. The Metropolitan Police area, for example, where non-whites comprise 29% of the population they commit 57% of the serious crime, an over-representation of 276%, compared to the overall national figure of 288%.

      Surprisingly – or perhaps not, given its proximity to South London – the police force area with the worst figures for ethnic criminality is not one of the major urban centres, but semi-rural Sussex. In that police force area, which has a non-white population of 3.5%, ethnics are responsible for an astonishing 24.5% of serious crime, an over-representation of over 700%.

      *criminality varies according to class*

      Presumably a reference to socio-economic class. Nobody would argue that members of the lower SE class are disproportionately involved all crime, whether petty or serious. We certainly have a large enough ‘underclass’ already to deal with, which does beg the question as to why the country continues to admit tens of thousands more people every year with the lowere SES that brings with it a propensity for higher lever levels of criminality. If low SES is the fundamental rationale to explain explain criminality what is the utility in continuing to add over 100,000 new non-whites to the population each year?

      1. That’s all interesting stuff, but can you further strip out organised criminality from more general public crime?

        Sussex has traditionally seen a large volume of organised crime and racketeering (you might remember Brighton Rock or Nicholas van Hoogstraten) due to a variety of factors, so again I’m going to pick you up and ask for more analysis of the statistics.

        Immigration is a highly complex matter, and I value the opportunity to discuss it with someone who is prepared to delve a little beneath the surface, so let’s try to be a bit cautious before reaching for conclusions.

    4. *organised criminality vs general public crime*

      Unfortunately the S.95 report does not provide that detailed breakdown by police force area. It includes ethnicity of perpetrator by area, and ethnicity by category of crime, but not ethnicity by crime category by area. Nevertheless it is the case that for every one of the ten categories of indictable (ie serious) crime, whites are under-represented and ethnics (especially blacks) over-represented.

      Besides the serious crime data, the report also contains a host of other ethnically-based data on crime themes such as homicides (the inter-racial statistics are particularly revealing), arrests, searches, youth offences and so on. The overall picture is in fact so negative that it’s altogether unclear why the government continues to publish the report, at least in its current form. Perhaps they feel confident in the slothfulness of MSM hacks.

      The most recent edition can be downloaded from here:

      http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/raceandcjs.htm

      *Sussex and organised criminality*

      As mentioned the published data does not permit analysis in that form.

      *Immigration and criminality*

      The official statistics clearly show that immigrants and their descendants are disproportionately over-represented in the statistics on criminality. It’s difficult to imagine that any coherent argument can be put to refute that statement. It’s also quite clear that most (permanent) migrants into the UK – who derive from the third world – are of lower SES than the host population, so if we insist on a causal link between low SES and criminality, what is so outlandish about linking immigration as a contributory factor as well?

    5. Oh lovely, Dan Dare, a defender of racist ideas and racist mythology that I recognise from Lib Con has popped over here now.

      Great stuff.

      You’re wasting your time Oranjepan, Dan Dare will not and cannot much from his deeply entrenched prejudiced positions.

    6. Mr. Hoffman-Gill would like to refute the facts, but since he can’t he is reduced to facile sloganeering and has to resort to an appeal for a communal ‘no platform’ stance.

      1. I have seen far too many threads where your facts are consistently and oft refuted Dan Dare, it makes little difference and as find wriggle room to perpetuate your racist myths.

        I have no idea how you sleep being such a terrible bigot and to be clear, I did not ask for no platform (already with the distortions and lies, my point proven), I was merely making it clear to oranjepan that debating you is pointless, due to your intransigence and utter assurance in your own ideas.

        All the best.

    7. My alleged intransigence aside, is there not an obligation on your part to actually demonstrate where my arguments are wrong, rather than loftily brushing them aside as racist and bigoted?

      As for my facts being ‘consistently and oft refuted’ can you provide a single instance where this has in actually occured?

      If we consider the recent multi-part immigration thread on Liberal Conspiracy, for example, I believe you will find that it was Unity who left the field early not I. Despite multiple requests he has declined to return to complete his series which was supposed to be the ultimate exegesis on the statistical background to immigration under NuLabor. Discretion being the better part of valour, I suppose.

      But anyway, the challenge is on the table for you to back you claim by turning up a single instance in which I have been bested by a liberal opponent in such discussions. Put up or shut up.

    8. The gallery will have noted that Mr. Hoffman-Gill has declined to rise to the challenge.

      Quelle surprise!

    9. First off, Daniel, I’ve got to say no time spent communicating is ever wasted, that is, provided it is effective communication involving equal parts listening and talking.

      Secondly, it is worth drilling down on the details of supposed facts to try to discover whether there is actually any direct causal relationship between issues rather than just noting correlations.

      So I don’t think it is helpful to promote the simplistic view that immigration is either just good or just bad – it is always a far more mixed picture, and until the truth is discovered it is impossible to make an accurate and balanced judgement.

      And I’d like to point out to Dan the classic example where perceptions were manipulated – regarding Jews in ghettoes – German newsreel propaganda during the 30s and 40s regularly showed the inhabitants of the ghettoes in many major cities to be suffering from malnutrition, disease, engaging in black markeering etc, living a typically undesirable existence.

      These conditions were used as a major form of practical justification for the continued existence of segregation, but what wasn’t shown was how these conditions were created or the context of the ghettoes as open prisons (and don’t think that is the only example I can provide of misrepresentations of reality).

      In effect the popular argument presented by the government of the time was a complete inversion of the truth – because where immigrants/foreigners/people in general aren’t engaged in proper (ie open and honest) communication processes with officialdom they will lack sufficient information to make good choices regarding their personal circumstances.

      Consequently it is easy to see where adequate alternative support networks aren’t available to them immigrant communities will tend to migrate towards criminal organisations. And as such I fear you may be overlooking these wider factors in making your argument.

      Look at the history of organised crime in the USA. Irish and German gangs were dominant up to prohibition, but were supplanted by Italians and Jews, who in turn were replaced by Columbian and Cuban migrants, who’ve since been overtaken by Asian, Russian and eastern European groups following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Each new wave of immigration brought with it a new crime wave – but this was more to do with offical corruption and disinterest in protection and security of the newer groups since they did not form an electoral constituency and this meant there was an official bias against helping them. But as each of these communities gained votes and a foothold on the social ladder there was a tendency to disperse and integrate with normal law-abiding society, aided by politicians who represent them.

      Criminality in the black population of the USA reflects a slightly different trend as they weren’t immigrants, nevertheless opposition to officialdom (of which crime is one form) has significantly reduced as blacks take a more prominent role in the society.

      The general rule is that where institutions fail opposition to the process increases as the problems become more noticable.

      It is important to recognise there is a level at which the ability of institutions begin to struggle with the issues raised by unbalanced inputs such as migration flows, but this depends on the level of resources available (which have their own limiting factors).

      So it is important to acknowledge that there are some problems, but that they are not with any people – rather they are in the ability of institutions to manage transitions effectively.

      And that is an argument against the party of government which has overseen the political failure – not an argument against the processes themself.

      If we look at Labour, they’ve partly encouraged immigration to help them cope with the economic problems they’ve created for themselves – a growing labour force equals growing treasury reciepts (it also helps suppress wage inflation at the lower end, which helps companies).

      But on the other side, given the levels of debt facing the country, it would be financially irresponsible to attempt to reverse the trend.

      Electorally, immigration also helps the party which is seen to support it. It does this in two ways. First it creates a bias among the numbers of voters (through second and thrid generation immigrants who gain voter eligibility), and second it creates greater unity among political activists by giving them an enemy to fight against.

      So, while I’m not opposed to immigration I do think we need to be much more cautious about understanding how people are manipulated on both sides into polarising the debate – which is to the detriment of all.

      And before the two of you descend into a vicious circle where the real issues begin to be ignored and the truth is lost for the sake of playing favorites, maybe I can ask you both to set out some guiding principles behind each of your positions – well, how about it?

      1. Fine attitude but one that will fall on deaf ears when debating bigots, who at the very least will want the last word if nothing else, measly succour for being bested but succour to them all the less.

        I wish you all the luck in the world.

        1. Well, I hesitate from calling people bigots because I don’t want to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy – which is why I’m refraining from calling you closed-minded and deaf to the real concerns expressed behind what you think are Dan Dare’s racist views (because I for all your comments here I don’t think you are).

          So Daniel, please let me ask you more pointedly – do you think there should be any limits on immigration, and if so how is it possible to form a basis for deciding them?

          Under current arrangements the principle of reciprocity is to the fore, which I doubt many racists would want to remove even if they acknowledged it or understood the implications. Would I be correct in thinking this too restrictive for you?

          1. My previous encounters with Dan Dare has informed my stance on how he carries himself on the Internet and also his contributions and whether it is debate with a view to change in himself and others or demagoguery.

            As for being deaf to the real concerns that are behind his views, I would have to say that I do not think the concerns are real, as in, they are real to the person but not real in reality, for want of a better phrase.

            Many people look for evidence that fulfil their views, rather than working form the other way round.

            As for my own personal feelings about immigration, I believe it is a terrible red herring for bigots to obsess over, a focus on those at the bottom of societies pile rather than at the top.

            I am all for people coming here to seek work, along as that is done within the correct legal confines, I do not believe in limits or quotas at all.

            Rather than immigration we have far more pressing concerns such as environmental issues, the fact we exist in the hegemony of capitalism, which is a failing and destructive operational system, educational reform and military excursions in far off lands.

            The only impact immigration has on my own personal politics is the influx of backwards cultural attitudes, which as long as they are not tolerated, present no problems but this comes with the disclaimer that our own religiously based cultural attitudes need to be held in check if we are to lecture others on the belief systems they bring with them.

            But that is a fringe position but one I hold onto as a committed atheist.

            Hope that helps.

    10. No, that’s cool, and as a committed agnostic (ha, that’s commitment for you!) I’m well prepared to split hairs with you.

      Firstly I don’t think it’s correct to accuse people of ‘backward’ cultural attitudes, as everyone owns and contributes to their own culture and to do so is akin to inverted prejudice which appears designed to provoke a reaction. I’m sure you’re aware how digging into identity politics is a futile exercise.

      Equally intolerance of politically incorrect opinions is by no means sufficient to deal with the real problems those people are actually identifying. I mean, whether Dan Dare really thinks immigration causes crime or not, it does not change the fact that all crime is a problem and that the only way for you to prove there is no link is to take every opportunity to address it.

      But I do have to challenge you on what sounds like a blazing inconsistency – you say you are against all limits and quotas on immigration, so long as it is within the ‘correct legal confines’. This doesn’t make sense – either you believe there should be no law or you must offer some principle grounding the relevant regulations.

      Strategically it doesn’t make sense either – you’re not prepared to concede any ground to your opponent even if it neutralises any rationale they have. Please can I ask you to refine your position?

      1. I used to shy away from using backward too, for many years I was tolerant and then one day, it struck me why it was okay for me to be tolerant of really bad ideas just because they stemmed from religion or long cultural practice, penny dropped and now, no matter where an ideas source or origins, I judge it on merit.

        Hence I freely use terms like backward, retarded and obsolete; or just plain ‘bad idea’.

        I also think that ‘talking’ about stuff on the Internet is horribly overrated and merely leads to the perpetuation of the myth of all opinion as valid opinion just because you have an opinion.

        What you call a blazing inconsistency (this is why I hate talking about things on the Internet, is not a medium suited to nuance or debate at all, it is one step up from a text message) reflects the fact that I do not believe in abuses to the system, as in, false claims of asylum or those that come here not to work or to build a life but merely to commit acts of crime or to damage systems of freedom.

        It’s all about balance, which by the way, is not what communicating on the Internet is about.

        You ask me to refine my position, this makes me laugh, as if us talking on this blog will in any way cause a shift in policy anywhere or even within us.

        It is pointless, self-indulgent posturing and if you give it any more credence than that, you’re kidding yourself.

        As I said, immigration to me is a non-starter as an issue, far more pressing concerns in the world, which makes out petty concerns about who is coming here and what they are doing look pitiful…because they are.

    11. Oranjepan said:

      *I can ask you both to set out some guiding principles behind each of your positions – well, how about it?*

      Well I’m certainly up for it, whether or not Mr. H-G is.

      My fundamental view is that mass immigration from the third world is both unnecessary and socially destructive. We are being required to accept a demographic transition unprecedented in our history, without any electoral mandate and without any rational explanation why it is good for us.

      I am in favour of limited migration between countries of similar cultural heritage (Western Christendom, if you like)and comparable HDI, but only where such migration fulfils identifiable economic needs and remains in overall balance.

      Nobody has *ever* been able to demonstrate any tangible benefit arising from the Afro-Asian demographic invasion of the last 50 years, except for the standard triumvirate of ethnic cuisine, colourful new modes of dress and exciting new dance syncopations.

      It will surely not have escaped notice that Mr. H-G has declined the opportunity to explain his enthusiasm for mass immigration from the third world, preferring instead his default mode of worn-out invective and name-calling.

      If you wish to examine a fuller treatment of my views on immigration, you can read the following. Feel free to comment there also if you feel so moved.

      http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_immigration_industry_tacks_into_the_wind/

      1. I did set out my position you vile racist and I’m glad you did yours, as it reads like a bigots action plan with your ‘similar cultural heritage’, ‘no tangible benefit arising from the Afro-Asian demongraphic invasion‘ and patronising, ignorant summations of the alleged triumvirate.

        You missed the big one, because you can’t muster it you weak-chinned bigot: tolerance and understanding of others based upon the petty definer of skin colour and place of origin, something you lack in bucket loads.

    12. Thanks DD,
      but you leave several questions of consequence wide open.

      Doesn’t Britain have a historical interest and responsibility to the countries which were formerly under our Empire, many of whose indigenous populations suffered at our hands?

      Also, if you wish to take that argument, how can you possibly account for the racial mixing which has continued from that time – how many generations back do you think ‘cultural heritage’ continues?

      Alternatively it is possible to use your argument to say General Clive completely changed the whole of India and that this therefore justifies giving a UK passport to each of the current 1.6bn fanatical cricket-loving Indians and every subsequent generation for perpetuity. Isn’t cricket part of British ‘cultural heritage’?

      Furthermore, what recognition do you give to the diplomatic benefit gained from strengthened contact between countries?

      For example Britain holds a particularly significant position regarding the Iranian attempts to gain a nuclear bomb – surely Omid Djalili and Shappi Khorsandi are good examples of people who provide a greater cross-cultural understanding showing the only major difference between our countries is among the political direction ruling elites choose to take us.

      So doesn’t this contact ultimately lead to not only reduced chances of conflict between our nations but also greater chances of solving a wider range of political conflicts around the world?

      Mossad’s use of forged UK passports is another case where Britain is in a position to intervene criticically in Israeli policy, but where Germans, French, Italians, Turks, Saudis, Egyptians etc must all remain silent.

      Isn’t this a pragmatic way to restrain the illegal military action and justify economic sanction which directly follows from the links built through immigration, or would you prefer to give free reign to foreign assassins and set a precedent that any security service has carte blanche if they can say it is in the ‘national interest’? Comparably, did you support the inquiry into the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station?

      Surely British trade and continued wealth depends on our diplomatic standing, which is in turn built upon full subscription to the international community.

      We can rightfully claim to have helped raise the living standards of every country through our links and we have set the basis for most of the global institutions – we won the wars of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries by building alliances based on mutual interest rather than coercion, so I find it difficult to understand why are you so concerned to reverse the single policy which has brought us so much success.

      You state “mass immigration from the third world is both unnecessary and socially destructive” and is taking place “without any electoral mandate and without any rational explanation” to the public.

      I would say the scale of current immigration is not unprecedented – there have been a succession of waves of immigration stretching back since before the Romans that have been far higher, and visibly more destructive (the Normans massacred more than 10% of the total population in a period less than a decade).

      I would also argue that policy debates are only initiated where change of policy is desirable, so if we see the current policy as a simple continuance of a centuries-old historic trend no debate and no new mandate has been required.

      As to whether immigration at current levels is necessary or beneficial, I’m happy to argue neutrally that it completely depends on the way it is managed – ie on the quality of communication required to maintain public support and provide the means of integration to newcomers, which is (as I said above) largely a matter of resourcing.

      I agree that the current government is failing, but because it is not providing sufficient resourcing to this policy area – which that means it is a process issue, not a policy problem.

      In other words this government is the problem – not any immigrants.

      Or, if you want to put it another way, there are things which know no borders – love, money, sport and the corruption of officials are not least among them.

      The way to improve each of them is by reaching agreement on the rules we will tolerate together so we can hold the other side to account – if you turn your back you will eventually get a nasty surprise you can do nothing about…

    13. I wonder what particular private axe Daniel Hoffman-Gill is grinding that he should so vehemently denounce those who prefer that the British population remains predominantly indigenous.

      Is he harbouring some atavistic fear of possible exclusion should the majority have their way?

      1. DanDare,
        perhaps you could respond to the questions rather than getting sidetracked into making spurious attacks.

        For one thing, I’m interested what you mean by ‘indigenous’, considering the population of Britain’s peculiar history as experiencing continuous immigration since at least 6,000bc – surely to deny the contribution of numerous ethnic groups who’ve settled here is to deny British identity.

        And given this fact, I’m very interested how you’d delimit the term ‘majority’ in this sense.

        In my experience it is usually the newest newcomer who attempts to exclude others in order to gain acceptance, so at this point I fell it would be right for you to provide some information on your background.

        Why is it that you are you so insecure about your identity?

        Why is it that you are so ignorant about British history?

        Is it because you isn’t British?

    14. Oranjepan, I’m composing a response to your earlier post which included some searching questions, but that may take a while – so later this evening or maybe tomorrow.

      In the meantime your 17:55 post can be quickly dealt with.

      First, re: indigenous. I think most people would take a common-sense approach to this question and would probably agree, if properly guided, that 1948 represents the watershed. Anyone whose then-extant antecedents were British by birth might be considered indigenous for present purposes.

      Now we could of course be rather more rigorous and require than someone’s family tree, as maintained by the National records Office at 1837.com, demonstrates that the preponderance (75%) of his antecedents were born in the British Isles.

      Even more rigorous, a simple DNA test to determine deep paternal and maternal ancestry is readily available.

      Of course there will always be awkward boundary cases, but they should not be permitted to define policy as is so often the case with those of liberal sensibilities, a term which could be applied to successive post-war governments and the political elite in general.

      As for you point about newcomers, I am not sure that I agree. I see very few ethnic minority members standing up for indigenous rights (the BNP’s token Sikh being an obvious exception). In my experience, ethnics of all stripes, together with members of other self-styled ‘oppressed’ groups are amongst the most vocal in calling for open borders and ‘equality and diversity’.

      And yes I am British, born and bred, as are my ancestors on both sides for many generations. Fwiw, I am a member of Y-haplogroup R1b-L21 and Mt-DNA hg H, if that means anything to you.

      1. DD,
        Okay, thanks for that.

        However let me give a quick riposte: what may be common sense is not necessarily the same thing as good sense.

        The fixed cut-off date of 1948 seems pretty arbitrary and very recent to be reliable according to ‘racial’ terms. So are you sure you aren’t confusing biology with culture?

        If so, why not use before ‘living memory’ – I believe the oldest living Briton is about 110 years old. At least that way you could claim greater consistency.

    15. A question for Oranjepan:

      You seem to have some scepticism about the entitlement of indigenous Britons to maintain themselves as the predominant ethnic group.

      What is your position about the plight of the ethnic Tibetans who are struggling to reverse the Chinese encroachment into their ancestral homeland.

      Should they be as relaxed and sanguine about that as you appear to believe we should be about the Afro-Asian encroachments into Britain?

      1. No, frankly.

        The issue in Tibet is less about ‘ethnic encroachment’ than how immigration is being directed by the central Beijing apparatus to undermine the principle of political self-determination.

        So it’s about politics rather than biology.

        If you believe in an accountable system, then it does not matter who is at the top so long as they support the system by which they attained their position.

        In an unaccountable system a vested interest is created which gives rise to internal conflicts that cannot be resolved because the interest is in maintaining power for their own benefit, rather than for the common good. This selfish interest is unstable because the appearance of security it provides is subject to being exposed as brittle, inflexible and incapable of adapting to circumstance.

        So it is vital to split a hair and distinguish between selfish interest and self-interest.

        The Chinese/Tibet situation is different to ours because we ensure accountability through elections.

        The Tibetans I’ve met have no problem with the immigration of individual Han and would have no problem with Chinese control if they had elections to provide accountability because this would provide a mechanism to redefine their relationship and devolve the autonomy which is being resisted currently.

        For them it’s not about appearances, but about political reality.

    16. The appeal of the 1948 date is that it provides a readily identifiable point of ‘step change’.

      Prior to that point the number of coloured people resident in Britain could have been accommodated quite comfortably with a third division football ground (ie less than 30,000).

      1948 was the date that everything started to change. There were of course ‘non-indigenous’ people resident in Britain then – several hundred thousand Jews, for example – but their demographic impact and social presence was impercepitible.

    17. BTW, Oranjepan I’d be perfectly relaxed about pushing the date even further back, to 1837 say, when centralised records of births, deaths and marriages first came into effect.

      Bear in mind though that even officer candidates for the SS only had to demonstrate full Aryan descent for a mere five generations.

      The ‘1948 rule’ is in effect even more liberal than that.

    18. Oranjepan said: but you leave several questions of consequence wide open.
      *Doesn’t Britain have a historical interest and responsibility to the countries which were formerly under our Empire, many of whose indigenous populations suffered at our hands?*

      Absolutely not. Liberal-lefty hand-wringing over supposed imperial transgressions is extremely passé and anyway at least as good a case can be made that the long-term benefits to the local population far outweigh the lingering effect of any historical wrongs. India, for example, enjoys not just cricket, but also parliamentary democracy, an independent judiciary, a functioning military, a western-style economic and technical infrastructure, not to mention the English language and a unified state, none of which existed before colonisation.

      The ‘You were there, so now we’re here’ line of argument is nonsensical anyway. If we were to pursue that to its logical but ridiculous conclusion, then we could all demand villas in Tuscany from the Italian government as recompense for the suffering that our ancestors endured during their occupation of Britain.

      *Also, if you wish to take that argument, how can you possibly account for the racial mixing which has continued from that time – how many generations back do you think ‘cultural heritage’ continues?*

      I’m uncertain of the relevance of this question. There has actually been remarkably little race-mixing. In fact, it is still strongly tabooed in most societies and was until really quite recently even here in Britain. But even here the incidence is still extremely small despite incessant establishment propaganda that it is not only natural but also kewl to go ‘inter-ethnic’. Less than 1% of white British have a non-white partner, even now.

      *Furthermore, what recognition do you give to the diplomatic benefit gained from strengthened contact between countries? *

      I would say that it is high time that we learned to keep our nose out of other peoples’ business, as the recent disastrous neo-imperialist adventures in the Middle East surely demonstrate beyond doubt. As for Israel, well who cares anyway? There is precisely zero upside for the UK in embroiling itself in that particular rat’s nest, leave it to the Yanks I say. It’s their mess to sort out.
      You seem to wish to correlate diplomatic contact and economic performance with liberal, open immigration policies. The reasons why western liberal states are unique in promoting such policies is a fascinating subject in itself (I call it ‘Hitler’s revenge’), but that’s really a separate topic. In fact, there is little direct correlation, states like China, India, Japan and most OPEC countries enjoy considerable diplomatic and economic success while at the same time pursuing immigration policies that are highly illiberal by western standards. India, for example, is constructing an Israeli-style wall to keep out unwanted Bangladeshis but in this case, since there is no racial angle to pursue, western liberals withhold their approbation.

      *… would you prefer to give free reign to foreign assassins and set a precedent that any security service has carte blanche if they can say it is in the ‘national interest’? Comparably, did you support the inquiry into the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes at Stockwell tube station?*

      The De Menezes incident was an unfortunate byproduct of policy that has allowed foreign terrorists to take sanctuary in Britain. I support that inquiry but I would also support the rounding up and deporting of the 2000-odd terrorist suspects who have been identified by MI5. And, of course, a complete prohibition on the admittance of any future prospective migrant (or asylum seeker) about whom there is the slightest suspicion. Anything less is not simply irresponsible, it is criminal folly.

      *Surely British trade and continued wealth depends on our diplomatic standing, which is in turn built upon full subscription to the international community… so I find it difficult to understand why are you so concerned to reverse the single policy which has brought us so much success.*

      Britain’s continued trade and wealth depend upon it remaining an integral part of a strengthened EU. The days when Britain could go it alone, either diplomatically or economically, are long since past. The only alternative would be to attempt to resuscitate the ‘special relationship’ but that is swimming against the tide of events. The Atlanticist era is drawing to a close and all developed nations, or aspirant members of that club, are seeking to join up with one power bloc or another. Membership of such will essential for survival in the coming Age of Shortages.

      *I would say the scale of current immigration is not unprecedented – there have been a succession of waves of immigration stretching back since before the Romans that have been far higher, and visibly more destructive (the Normans massacred more than 10% of the total population in a period less than a decade).*

      This is ahistorical. The demographic effect of each of the successive ‘waves’ of immigration since the arrival of the Saxons in the 5th and 6th centuries has been individually and collectively insignificant. The largest relative influx between then and the current Afro-Asian one was the Scandinavian in the 9th century. So for over a thousand years until quite recently the racial and genetic makeup of the population remained essentially unchanged. In fact, most British males (75%+) can trace their paternal ancestry back to the Neolithic, and maternal ancestry even further back. So the proposition that we are, historically, a ‘nation of immigrants’ is preposterous, even though the present reality is that we are well on the way to becoming one., and for no apparent reason.

      *I agree that the current government is failing, but because it is not providing sufficient resourcing to this policy area – which that means it is a process issue, not a policy problem.*

      This obscures the fundamental, underlying question: why should the government (aka the British taxpayer) have any responsibility in providing resources for migrants anyway? Aren’t they supposed to be economically beneficial? I thought that was still the principal rationale for admitting them in such numbers.

      Have you read my piece yet on Majority Rights? If not, you should.

    19. So it really is about appearances for you. That is quite shocking in it’s disregard for fact.

      As you clearly don’t call yourself a liberal, I politely ask you to restrain yourself from telling me what it is and what it isn’t.

    20. *So it really is about appearances for you. That is quite shocking in it’s disregard for fact.*

      A remark that would be shockingly simplistic if it were not so commonly encountered in discussions such as this one.

      If it is about anything, it is about what Dawkins calls the ‘extended phenotype’.

      As for liberalism, believe it or not I was once what might be termed a liberal. In fact, in many respects I still am. I believe for instance, that future generations will come to regard the social-market model that prevailed in western Europe from the end of WW II to the onset of ‘globalisation’ and its tawdy cousin egalitarian universalism as the Golden Age of European history.

    21. The BNP is the only party which stands up for the rights of the indigenous population so I will vote for it, warts and all.

      Anyone who prefers to live in a proper country and not a glorified transnational Jobcentre should follow suit.

      Anyway, how about my question above, got an answer?

    22. Sorry – missed your response on Tibet.

      As I understand it, one of the principal objectives of the ‘Free Tibet’ campaign is to halt or reverse the influx of Han into Tibet.

      “… The Han influx could result in Tibetans becoming a minority in their own land and is seen by Tibetans as the greatest threat to the survival of Tibetan culture and identity. The Dalai Lama says this policy of ‘demographic aggression’ has led to ‘cultural genocide’ in Tibet. The population of Lhasa, Tibet’s capital, has grown six fold since the Chinese occupation and currently two thirds of its citizens are Chinese. The new railway line facilities an ever growing number of tourists as well as Chinese settlers into Tibet. China encourages Han settlement by offering various favourable conditions for migrants such as tax incentives. As more and more Han Chinese migrate to Tibet the imbalance will continue to exist and be exacerbated…”

      http://www.freetibet.org/about/migration

      They don’t seem quite as sanguine about the prospect of ethnic displacement as you or your Tibetan acquaintances.

      1. Selective interpretation is unreliable, sorry. What you’ve quoted is not inconsistent with what I wrote earlier.

        China’s behaviout towards Tibet is similar to Britain’s behaviour to the Orange Free State at the end of the 19th century as an outside power interfering for political purpose – it is not the same as general immigration into Britain currently.

    23. Did I answer your questions btw? Any grey areas or loose ends?

      Any facts you wish to challenge?

      If not, then perhaps I can pose a question to you: Immigration, what’s it for?

    24. Well, I happen to disagree with you on who the BNP actually supports and I think this will be reflected in the number of votes they recieve.

      In response to your question about support for migrants and the economic benefit they provide I shall try to simplify my answer by stating trade is a mutually beneficial exchange of products and services rather than a one-way flow. The benefit comes from free and fair exchange in which both sides decide what they get is worth more to them than what they give up.

      It is through the exchange that additional value is created, so it’s fine if you choose not to participate in increasing the volume of exchange, but you shouldn’t expect any return on your lack of investment without resorting to force. And you can’t force people to continue trading when they continually lose out.

      The ability to accurately determine if an investment is worthwhile depends on your ability to calculate the factors and uses – so whether or not taxes should be collected and used for any particular purpose is a matter of calculation, not principle.

      Secondly I’ll point out to you that the process of trade and the movement of goods and services depends on the movement of people. Where you restrict one, you will also restrict the other.

      It’s no coincidence that the major financial institutions are now all located in Docklands given the proximity to the City – the port and their agents grew up side-by-side to form the greatest melting-pot in existence.

      Social and economic advance is created by just such access to new products, technologies and skills, so without the freedom of movement of people found in Britain you create social and economic stagnation and a more intensified fight over a smaller pie where the vulnerable and weak lose out – whatever is claimed about defending their rights.

      But it interests me that you claim once to have described yourself in different terms, perhaps you can explain at what point the change came. Was there one particular moment encapsulating your damascene reversion?

    25. I should say there is no answer to what immigration is for, it is just a defined form of movement across political units of administration.

      Immigration is a process, not a purpose. So within the question you’ve made an elementary category mistake.

    26. Oranjepan wrote:

      *Well, I happen to disagree with you on who the BNP actually supports and I think this will be reflected in the number of votes they recieve.*

      I tend to agree that the BNP will not do well in the coming election, but that is not really as important as their ongoing role as a catalyst for reform, as well as acting as a placeholder for something much bigger yet to come. But that won’t happen for a while yet, the situation is nowhere near dire enough yet for the Great British Public to be aroused.

      Who do you think BNP is actually supporting then if not the rights of the indigenous populations?

      *… migrants and the economic benefit they provide … the process of trade and the movement of goods and services depends on the movement of people. Where you restrict one, you will also restrict the other.*

      To some extent I agree with the second point, as already noted previously. Developed economies should be able to trade skill-sets where this is economically beneficial and remains roughly in balance. So Japanese investment bankers coming to London for specific temporary assignments is OK, importing tens of thousands of unnecessary Indian code-jockeys and allowing them to apply for permanent settlement is not.

      *Social and economic advance is created by just such access to new products, technologies and skills, so without the freedom of movement of people found in Britain you create social and economic stagnation …*

      Unfortunately the reality of immigration in its present form is rather different from the glossily attractive picture that you paint. The overwhelming majority of migrants accepted for permanent settlement in Britain (and I do stress permanent) do not originate in countries which have much to offer in terms of the ability to provide the products, technologies and skills that you claim are necessary. They come predominantly from a handful of Afro-Asian countries which have very low levels of HDI and little industrial infrastructure, and certainly none that has meaningful value-add for a country like Britain.

      Unfortunately in the present miasmic confusion a migrant can be anyone from the managing director of a US multinational to an unemployable Somali goatherd or Bengali pot-washer. The statistics do not distinguish between them and all are assumed to be of equal value to the host country.

      *But it interests me that you claim once to have described yourself in different terms, perhaps you can explain at what point the change came. Was there one particular moment encapsulating your damascene reversion?*

      That’s a long story, but in it is large part the result of a great deal of empirical observation over the years, including residence in a number of different countries. One of the little games I used to play on my travels was to to ask myself what, if anything, is there of value in this country or society that we could profitably emulate at home? That soon sorts out the sheep from the goats.

      *I should say there is no answer to what immigration is for, it is just a defined form of movement across political units of administration.
      Immigration is a process, not a purpose. So within the question you’ve made an elementary category mistake.*

      That, if you don’t mind me saying, is a cop-out.

      You attempt to portray immigration as a natural process, like tectonic plates, something inevitable, irresistible and irreversible.

      It is nothing of the sort. It is simply a the result of political decisions (or in the Britain’s case, non-decisions) made by a managerial elite which have no democratic mandate and which, if the electorate were to be directly consulted, could and would be terminated tomorrow.

      So, if you you are unable to provide a rationale for immigration into Britain (or Europe generally) based on some functional value-add that a majority of the electorate would agree is real and beneficial, then we are entitled to believe that none exists.

      So how about, what’s it for? (which is a different question to why it’s happening). Confine your response to the particular case of Britain.

      1. Getting back ofter a day of chocolate excess (not something I imagine you’d enjoy from the flavour of your comments)…

        You’ve clearly given a lot of thought to the issue, but I can’t help but see that there are gaps in your reasoning.

        For starters you accepted the connection between immigration and trade, but go on to request details of a ‘functional value-add’: you already answered your own question, yet you still ask it anyway.

        Your whole argument seems to be based on what they can do for you. It’s take, take take. It’s based on a zero-sum game where no interests are shared. It’s absolutist and it’s completely one-sided.

        If it was a gender argument, you’d be saying men are from mars and women are from venus and never the twain shall meet. Well, where would that get you?

        I won’t bother to fisk your assertions and impressions one by one as I don’t think it’d make any difference to you. You’ve steadfastly made up your mind that this is the target of your ire and you won’t be shifted.

        Instead I’m interested in finding out more about how you convinced yourself this is the case – if you are accurate, then surely you can convince others.

        A bit of understanding can go a long way.

        Anyway, when I lived in deepest eastern Germany I remember watching a university lecturer who lived on the same street getting beaten with baseball bats because he was Vietnamese.

        When I was able to help him he explained he had studied psychology to understand that attitude. He’d emigrated to get away from it because he had thought Europe was better than his homeland where vicious racial attacks regularly occurred after the war against America finished.

        He said it was obvious to him now that Europeans are no better – it’s just some people and where you come from is irrelevant. He said it was sad because division always leads to violence and people who promote division have always experienced violence in some form or other.

        Would you dispute this observation from your own experience?

        You said you’ve lived abroad in a number of countries, perhaps you could expand upon your experience – where did you live?

        Maybe it was a particular experience which gave you a negative reaction. Because it clearly wasn’t a positive incident that inspired these thoughts with you.

        1. @ Oranjepan

          It’s disappointing that you’ve elected not to rise to the challenge posed and are unwilling – or unable – to present a reasoned case to justify the demographic transition that is currently underway.

          The scale of this transformation is such that it is not the role of those who are opposed to it to explain why it is wrong, but rather it is incumbent on its promoters and supporters to explain why it is happening and why it is good for us.

          Your last response brings up again the linkage between trade and immigration. I made the point the point earlier that it is important to distinguish between the two principal migrant streams that enter the UK. One stream consists of the professionals and specialists which multinational companies need to move around their international operations. The rationale for this exchange of skill-sets between developed countries is clear and completely uncontroversial, as long as it is reciprocal and broadly symmetrical with respect to access and numbers. It is also clear that such assignments tend to be of a temporary nature, and the ‘migrants’ will almost always return to their home country in due course, or will be posted on to a third country. The presence of such temporary migrants is quite obviously beneficial, both from a skills-exchange point of view as well as a narrowly fiscal perspective.

          But that does not describe the character of the other migrant stream, the one which provides the overwhelming bulk of *permanent* migration into Britain and Europe. In the case of Britain, around 85% of permanent migrants originate in the third world. The countries which have supplied the most permanent migrants during the NuLabor years are: India, Pakistan, South Africa, Somalia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Bangladesh and Iraq. The majority of these migrants have not been admitted for economic reasons but rather for the purposes of family formation/reunion and asylum.

          To return to the trade dimension once more, it would be a mistake to imagine that the countries which provide the most migrants are Britain’s most important trading partners. In fact the inverse is true, over 80% of Britain’s trade is with its fellow OECD members (60% with the EU) and less than 20% is with the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, for example, the four Scandinavian countries, with a combined population of 24 million represent a far more larger market for British goods and services than do the ten leading migrant source countries together with their 2.1 billion population (Source: UK Balance of Payments; the Pink Book 2009 Edition).

          In summary, there is simply no escaping the conclusion that mass migration as currently conducted is an economic irrelevancy for everyone except the migrants themselves who are, in fact, the principal indeed probably the only real beneficiaries.

          Which brings us back to the ‘give and take’ question. The giving is easy to establish; we provide economic, political and personal security to third world migrants in very large numbers. What I am searching for, and what liberals and immigration promoters have great difficulty in enumerating are the corresponding benefits that accrue to the host population in general. It is understood that particular individuals benefit personally from the cheap and pliant labour that migrants offer, or are in a position to benefit financially from their presence (the race relations and immigration industries, say), but what I am looking is the aggregate benefit to the country as a whole, something that will offset the very real and obvious dis-benefits arising from their presence.

          The final point I’d like to address is the matter of the purpose of this sort of discussion (it seems pretentious to style this as a debate). I don’t believe that the object of the exercise is to induce a change of mind in the other party – given the polarity of the respective positions that would be a highly ambitious undertaking – but rather to expose to public view the underlying rationale for the respective positions, in order that neutral or dispassionate observers can assess the weight of one argument versus the other. In that respect it seems to me that you have not yet made an equal contribution and I would like to urge you to attempt to do so, otherwise it will appear to the gallery that you have no argument to make.

          A parting suggestion would be that we relocate the conversation – if you feel inclined to continue it (I do) – to somewhere more congenial. Perhaps your venue? Or mine. I would feel rather more in responding to your questions about experiences and motivations in either place rather than here.

            1. now, now, DHG. Over a long enough period all people do get exactly what they deserve.

              I shall be happy to host some discussion of immigration issues over at my place in due course.

              However if I may say, I don’t see that the inability to see any immediate or tangible ‘aggregate benefits’ to justify a process is any rationale for wishing to stop it, nor does it offer any practical way for doing so: seeing a lack of reasons is not a reason to stop – it may actually suggest a trip to the opticians is needed.

              Far from ‘Dan Dare’ being able to justify the conclusions he has come to he has simply stated he cannot justify those he disagrees with.

              That’s a long way from making a case. So it doesn’t really matter how much he huffs and puffs about it, he is still kicking his own heels sitting on the sidelines.

              As I said before immigration is a process. As a process it has a variety of certain, specific, uncertain and inspecific effects, the balance of which can be either positive or negative depending on how they are handled.

              I fully accept that there is a level beyond the capability of resources to deal with effectively that it will inevitably be seen as an overall negative, or when excessive overresourcing will lead to a clear appearance of wastage, but that ignores the contingent circumstances of the specific period, area etc in which the measures are determined and the manner in which levels of resources are decided and applied. Basing a decision to change policy on the failure to handle the previous one properly id a recipe for disaster – and no guarantee of future success.

              Asserting that there is no current mandate, and that it will be overturned given an opportunity is pure wishful thinking based on nothing at all, except an inaccurate interpretation of fact. The mandate is implicit as a continuance of earlier decisions and the relative success of the current policy (and I do mean success – simply compare the British experience to most other countries).

              So certain types of cultures are not to this one man’s personal preference. I have to say I don’t personally ‘get’ all different cultures equally and when I travel I prefer to visit certain places and countries more than others. That’s only natural – nobody is an everyman; none of us are so cosmopolitan as to enjoy all experiences uniformly.

              Where I differ from DD is that I don’t extrapolate from a single particular to attempt to make a general rule for everyone else, as I accept and acknowledge the differences that exist do have both positive and negative aspects. In fact I value them and am capable of enjoying the variety that provides the spice of life.

              It’s a simple matter of perspective – I get more out of being on a rollercoaster than in an isolation tank, Dan Dare is the opposite. Well that’s his choice – it’s up to him to recognise the potential benefits available to him from engaging in a mixed society or to decide to shut himself off from them.

              Because the benefits are only potential, whereas the losses would be very real. We can fight for the benefits or fight to throw it all away.

              When framed in that context I think the vast majority of any population will recognise we each play a part in building the success or failure of the system. If we use the process creatively we are responsible for the benefits it provides, but if we drag it down and try to destroy it then we will naturally try to shift responsibility and blame the nearest scapegoat.

              But most significantly, our political mindset is shaped by the role we take – so how we talk about our views also tells others what activity we undertake.

              In other words BNP policies are designed (maybe not consciously) to hurt Britain and the people of Britain and BNP supporters actively undermine this country – the BNP is about ‘me, not ‘we’.

              However, that’s not completely bad, as it does draw back those who are all ‘we’ and no ‘me’ to rebalance the political debate slightly, but itstill does amuse me to hear anyone say they realistically think that sort of approach will ever build a majority consensus – I mean, the biggest threat to Nick Griffin comes from his own members who regularly send him death threats, not from any foreigners!

              I personally don’t wish ill of any BNP supporter, I just roll my eyes and think, ‘here we go again’ – building a rod for their own backs: they’ll grow up one day. Hopefully it won’t be too late for them when it does finally happen.

            2. Oranjepan, I do hope you won’t take it amiss if I don’t take your mild ticking-off of Daniel Hoffman-Gill as any sort of substantive response to my earlier post.

              Mr. Hoffman-Gill has already flagged his inability to engage in meaning ful discussion on matters that he clearly finds threatening to his person, so I am treating his interventions as static between transmissions.

              Perhaps you would be good enough to respond to my post directly.

    27. As predicted, endless raft of comments leaves racist Dan Dare unmoved, belligerent and as he was, as if this debate had not happened; aside from the fact that the Interwebs now has more bile than it had before.

      w00t

    28. look, everyone with half a brain knows that rod liddle is a c**t, the problem is they let him write his drivvle in the Sun, and the damage is done to the views of the working class every week. Do you think that they let him say what he says without an agenda?

    Comments are closed.