Institutional Corruption.

The report also found that one of the detectives at the heart of the investigation into Stephen's murder was corrupt and had links with the gangster father of one of his killers.

The officer allegedly reported back to his superiors with "personal evidence" about the family and "tactical intelligence" to help brief senior figures in the Metropolitan Police. 

This revelation is  scandalous but it surely undermines the conclusion that William Macpherson's infamous report made- that the police were institutionally racist. If it is the case that one of the officers investigating the murder had links to a suspect's family then there is a more direct explanation for the failures of the initial investigation. One which has nothing to do with race.

Macpherson's methodology was shoddy- he arbitrarily attributed all failings to racism despite a lack of evidence. In doing this he made little or no effort to consider other reasons- like police corruption.

Given the numerous occasions on which police cover ups and crookedness have been uncovered over the last twenty years it seems like corruption is more of an institutional issue for the police than racism.

Anti-Roma Prejudice And Noticing Group Differences

The Roma people have endured awful persecution for generations- most famously they were one of the groups targeted for extermination by Hitler in the Holocaust. Even today they are met with hostility and prejudice by many people in Europe. I wouldn't claim to be wholly immune to that prejudice even though I find them an interesting group.

This article denouncing Nick Clegg and David Blunkett for worrying about Sheffield's new gypsy population is the standard liberal reaction to fraught relationships with the Roma.

When prejudices are based on nonsense they are easy enough to erode but the problem is that many of the prejudices about the Roma are not based on misinformation but come from people noticing patterns that exist. This doesn't mean that discrimination against blameless individuals is wrong but the existence of cultural traits that are destructive and unpleasant to the majority population. These include Romany attitudes to things like stealing from outsiders and violence. This article- by an almost cluelessly right on liberal offers many examples:

The following day, while chatting with a group of Gypsies in the small Transylvanian village of Dealu Frumos, I get an insight into a side of the Roma that I have been constantly warned about but have not yet encountered. A young man and his friends are telling me about tsigani de casatsi—house Gypsies—"bad ones, who don't work on the land like us but just steal for a living." Without warning, he wrenches my notebook from my hands and shoves me against the car. I am punched in the kidneys, and my arm is twisted behind me. A blade is held to the side of my neck, and suddenly I am surrounded by roaring Gypsies, maybe 30 of them, more appearing every few seconds from the surrounding houses. My translator, Mihai, is punched in the head. "Money! Money! Money!" his tormentors bellow. I am allowed into the car to retrieve my bag, but Mihai is kept outside, a hostage to my ransom. I offer all the money from my wallet, and Mihai pulls free and throws himself into the back seat. As we drive off, we do an inventory of our injuries. Apart from bruises and shock, my main injury is to my hitherto benign image of the Roma as a wronged and misunderstood people.

That reporter went to Eastern Europe had clearly intended to write an article about how gypsies are persecuted by bigoted Slovakians and Romanians- but when behaviour like that is widespread in a community then someone who refused to prejudge Roma might be admirable but would also put themselves at unnecessary danger.

In other words the only way prejudice against the group will stop is if there is a clamp down on anti-social behaviour within the group.

Justice In A Tribal Society.

The Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case fascinates me because it shows how fragile the rule of law is even in an advanced democracy.

 There was quite clearly no evidence that George Zimmerman was guilty of a crime and he was found not guilty, but even so the fact that he was tried at all and the US government is still investigating him is an affront to justice.

The fact that so many people are willing to publicly denounce the verdict despite not actually being able to explain what evidence the prosecutors presented that showed that Zimmerman was a murderer is also shocking. It seems that the US Department of Justice is still trying to lynch Zimmerman by making it a civil rights case, despite a complete lack of evidence for any racial bias on the shooter's part.

What makes so many people lose their minds, lie shamelessly and dispose of the rule of law?

Tribalism.

By turning a tragic event into a racial issue- despite the fact that there is a lot of evidence that Zimmerman is no racist- the media have ensured that the question wasn't "did Zimmerman kill Martin" but " are you on the side of Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and Rosa Parks or are you a KKK sympathiser".

It's not an approach that is likely to uncover truth but is sells papers and enables idiots to preen self righteously and pretend to care about a dead kid (although not enough to actually look at what actually happened).

Ed Balls Needs To Work On His Interview Technique

Mehdi Hassan writes about the abuse he has to take because he is a Muslim:

A recent interview of mine with the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, elicited the following response: "Get out of my country, goatfucker." 

Racist bastard!

Lee Siegel's Socks Appeal

I didn't know this when I wrote my previous post about the race baiter Lee Siegel, but he was fired from the New Republic for ethical failings. In particular he did a Hari*, and created multiple sock puppets to praise himself (when all the real commentators were slating his ineptitude).

Getting fired from a magazine which has published the likes of Stephen Glass, Johann Hari, Andrew Sullivan and Scott Beauchamp is some achievement in it's own right. Come to think of it, is it worth checking Siegel's Wikipedia page tomorrow and looking at edits made prior to him getting caught being his own biggest fan?

* I wonder what Johann Hari is doing today with no Wikipedia to vandalise.

Race Baiting In The New York Times With Lee Siegel

Apparently Mitt Romney's campaign is succeeding because he's waycist!!!!! According to Lee Siegel:

But there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race.

Yes, why haven't people noted the role of Romney's whiteness in beating Gingrich, Perry and Huntsman? I can't work it out.

Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president.  

"Subtle" is the race baiter's code for "invented".

In this way, Mr. Romney’s Mormonism may end up being a critical advantage. Evangelicals might wring their hands over the prospect of a Mormon president, but there is no stronger bastion of pre-civil-rights-America whiteness than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

What about the New York Times editorial board? Mitt Romney's father George was a prominent supporter of civil rights and was spoken of favourably by Martin Luther King.

Yes, since 1978 the church has allowed blacks to become priests. But Mormonism is still imagined by its adherents as a religion founded by whites

So no Mormons can be president. I think Lee Siegheil needs to look closer to home for subtle racism.

It’s true that Mr. Romney’s opponents are all white as well. But each is tainted in his own way. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich appear soft on Hispanic immigration, and Mr. Gingrich is hardly the standard-bearer for the invincible nuclear family.
Rick Santorum is an Italian-American Catholic

 What? So Catholicism means Santorum is insufficiently mainstream but Mormonism doesn't?

And Ron Paul’s isolationist conspiracy-mongering recalls, if anything, the radical-right fringe of the ’50s and ’60s, of the John Birchers and the followers of George Wallace, a manic moment even most evangelicals would rather forget.

So his being Mormon is even more racially provocative than you know- hating black people.

Contrast that with Mr. Romney’s meticulously cultivated whiteness. He is nearly always in immaculate white shirt sleeves. He is implacably polite,

Ah, so being polite and well dressed are white traits. Who's the racist here? Barack Obama got praised effusively for being polite and well dressed back in 2008. I'm glad I can prove my anti racism by saying that Lee Siegheil is a gutter dwelling, race baiting whore.

The whole fundamental conceit of Seigel's rant is that there is a significant body of opinion that is uniquely uncomfortable with Barack Obama and regards him as illegitimate because he is black. No evidence is made to support the notion that opponents of Obama would be perfectly relaxed if a white person was enacting the same policies or if Obama faces more delegitimisation than other Presidents (the conspiracy theories over Bush's wins in 2000 & 2004 would be an interesting place to start).

On the other hand the author clearly does regard Mr Romney as illegitimate because of his ethnic identity.

Shroud Waving As A Defence Stategy

I wasn't too bothered by Diane Abbott's comments about white people wanting to "Divide and rule" black people. It's mildly racist at worst- like other things that she has said in the past- and people are quite right to think that it is foolish for a shadow minister but in the grand scheme of things it isn't bad enough to lose sleep over.

What was much more offensive was the small horde of apologists for Diane Abbott insinuating that to focus on a prominent black figure's remarks about white people was in some way trivialising the murder of Stephen Lawrence because "OMG!!! ITZ THE SAME WEEK 2 OF HIS MURDERERS WERE CONVICTED!!!!*

Given that Abbott's original remark was made in the context of a discussion stemming from the convictions it is a stupid argument- it could not happen at any other time. It's such a brazenly cynical strategy of circling the wagons to protect one of their own that it's amazing that anyone thinks it would work.

* So far the shroud waving defenders of St Diane include Gary Younge, Laurie Penny, Steven Baxter, at least one Guardian cartoonist and tons of Twitterers.

Never Trust Your Own Mind

The story about the hard left president of the NUS- Aaron Porter- being racially abused by the ultra left student activists was not something I found surprising given the nature of the extreme left. It was all to believable to me.

Others though found it incredible and demanded further evidence that the event had actually happened. At first I assumed that the writer was making excuses for the protestors because he sympathised with their cause until I noticed that the arguments he gave for disbelieving the reports were very similar to the arguments made to refute claims by a black liberal congressman that he had been racially abused by a Tea Party protest. I found that refution very convincing.

There are some differences in the stories and the latter story was marginally less plausible- but even so that isn't the real reason why I believed one refution of racist abuse immediately and treated the other one as being weasel words trying to defend the indefensible. It was because I was guilty of a cognitive bias that encouraged me to judge the evidence depending largely on which conclusion I wanted to hear.

I'm not remotely unusual in that regard but it pays to remember it.

The Worse Blair

Is it me or is it terrifying that a man this stupid and wilfully perverse was once the most powerful police officer in the UK. You know in charge of important stuff like counter terrorism. Ian Blair conclusion that the lack of donations to novelty candidate Diane Abbott's Labour leadership campaign is evidence of racism has drawn derision.

However we should not let that one statement overshadow the rest of his argument, because the rest of it is utterly retarded too:

Since making its extraordinary pact in May, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has pronounced on many things - money woes, scroungers, bloated and lazy public servants, military mess - but it has said nothing about race and racial integration. The Labour opposition, meanwhile, has been preoccupied with integration problems of its own.

Yes it is almost as though wars in Afghanistan & Iraq and economic disarray are more important than racial bean counting.

The silence is loud and widespread. Apart from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's proclamation that diversity was part of the strength that helped London get through the 7 July 2005 bombings and their aftermath (which it was),

So just think how non-diverse London fell apart during the Blitz....

and some odd mutterings in the press about whether or not it is anti-Semitic to claim that some residents of the Jewish enclaves of north London can be rude, race has disappeared not only off the government's agenda, but out of the public discourse, too.

This is within a month of the government blocking an EDL march in Bradford on the grounds that is racially sensitive.

Concern has been expressed that the coalition's cuts to public spending will hit the poor and women hardest

The famous parody of a New York Times headline springs to mind "World to End: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit".

what seems to have been missed is that these cuts will have just as disproportionately adverse an effect on minority groups.

So presumably minority groups were benefiting disproportionately from spending previously. Don't get me wrong I understand the concern and no doubt London's Brazilian community need spending cuts like a hole in the head but when you cut spending the people who get money spent on them tend to lose out.

Are the Muslim communities that were so alienated by the difficult choices made in counterterrorism policy suddenly going to forget all about it and become cheerful?

I think the absence of a publicity hungry Met Chief will make everyone happier about counter terrorism policy.

And how could London's Conservative-run Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) announce recently that the Met is no longer affected by institutional racism?

Presumably because they believe this to be the case. Given that "institutional racism" didn't require any evidence of its existence in the first place I don't see how evidence of its absence could be provided.

I believe that the MPA was wrong to do so. The Met is, without doubt, still affected by institutional racism,

Plainly it is not "without doubt" as he has just stated that the MPA doubts it.

as are almost all British institutions, and will be for years to come.

What exactly is the evidence for this, because if he provided a definition of "institutional racism" that could be tested then maybe I would believe him. Without a standard to measure against it is an unfalsifiable statement.

In less regulated markets, with more opportunities for lateral entry, the question should perhaps be asked even more fiercely. Just how many black editors and journalists, FTSE-100 CEOs, think-tank chairs and hospital bosses are there? How many black judges and QCs? Or government ministers, not to mention MPs?

Statistical disparities are not evidence of discrimination. The statistical over reprepresentation of Asians in the medical profession is not because whites are discrimintated against, nor the over representation of Blacks among professional footballer. Groups with very different histories and cultures tend to behave differently amazingly enough.

The answer in each case is some, but not many. Institutional racism may have diminished but it is still alive and kicking. Opportunities for citizens from ethnic minorities have improved, but they are not equal to others'.

Yet amazingly some ethnic minority groups have higher income and educational levels than the majority group.

There are at least more minority members of the Lords than the Commons because, wisely, they can be appointed there.)

Says the appointed member of the House of Lords

I am getting bored now because brevity is not one of Lord Blair's strengths so I will skip down to the bottom (so to speak):

Do we think it has all been solved? When the next attack by individuals inspired by a perverted view of Islam is successful, will voices be raised in defence of a minority not yet fully reconciled with a British state?

I hope so, but I can't help but feeling that in planning for that hypothetical circumstance he is concentrating on the less important issue....

Will British citizens of Pakistani descent not be bothered by the apparent unwillingness of people around the world to respond to calls for aid for the flood-stricken Asian country?

Actually donations have picked up a fair bit but in any case I am sure that that those most familiar with Pakistan will be most familiar with why people are reluctant to donate.

It may seem strange to some that this is being written by an ex-police officer. But surrounded by the silence of others, and following conversations with friends, former colleagues and even perfect strangers from black and minority communities, I have concluded that it is perhaps best for these questions to be coming from an unexpected direction.

Unexpected? Given the trajectory of your career and priorities shown up until now this is exactly what I expect of him.

Anyone who wants to make a claim about racism should be obliged to state what they consider proof of racism and how an accusation of racism could be falsified.

Women & Minorities Hardest Hit

One of those pompous group letters from all the usual suspects appears in the Guardian today denouncing the government's spending cuts. They appear to play what must be the full house of victimhood poker:

The £11bn welfare cuts, rise in VAT to 20%, and 25% reductions across government departments target the most vulnerable – disabled people, single parents, those on housing benefit, black and other ethnic minority communities, students, migrant workers, LGBT people and pensioners.

What I'm wondering is in what sense the budgets targets LGBT people, if anyone knows please let me know in the comments. Come to that if anyone knows how black and other enthnic minority communities are especially affected then feel free to elaborate.

Movies Not Historically Inaccurate Enough Say Race Baiters

Some people really are too stupid to breathe:

Essence.com recently featured a commentary titled, “Another White Actress to Play Cleopatra?” where the writer opined, “Honestly, I don't care how full Angelina Jolie's lips are, how many African children she adopts, or how bronzed her skin will become for the film, I firmly believe this role should have gone to a Black woman.”

First of all Egyptians in general are at least as close to white people as to black people in terms of their physical appearance, in fact probably closer. Secondly Cleopatra was not a typical Egyptian as she was part of the ruling Ptolemic dynasty and would therefore have been ethnically Greek. The only thing that should disqualify Angelina Jolie from playing Cleopatra is that the queen was actually a bit of a munter to be honest.

This is what happens when the branch of pseudohistory that is Afrocentrism enters the mainstream.

Joseph Harker Writes About Racism- Who Would Have Guessed?

Joseph Harker is upset that racists are allowed to teach in schools, in particular members of the BNP. I'm also upset that members of the BNP are teaching- because they are largely illiterate. The number of BNP members in the teaching profession is so small that the fuss over the issue smacks of a moral panic anyway and besides people should only be sacked for their beliefs if they intrude into how they do their jobs.

Of course as Joseph Harker has previously stated that all white people are racist by definition he might not be the best person to make the case as presumably this means that white people should be automatically excluded from the teaching profession.

Racism Watch

Suggesting that Afghanistan may in certain respects not be at the cutting edge of modernity is racist now.

Which is good to know.

I Blame Racism

Well if it's racism when particular ethnic groups score below the white average then using the same line of reasoning it must be racism when other ethnic groups get better results.

Government Doesn't Ban Something!

The government has for once decided not to ban something, in this case membership of the BNP for teachers, so congratulations to them.

If membership of the BNP doesn't interfere with their work in the class room there is no case to ban it. The NASUWT believes that it would interfere with the job:

"Maurice Smith seems to have focused, to a point of obsession, on the number of incidents," she said. "One incident is one too many. How many incidents would there have to be before Maurice Smith would be persuaded that further action is needed?

"The idea that a person who signs up to membership of the BNP can simply leave these beliefs at the school gate and behave as a 'professional' when they walk into school is risible.

"A principled stand was required. This is a matter of social justice, staff wellbeing and child protection."

Well if the NASUWT believes that it is impossible for teachers to leave their beliefs at the school gate, then fine but if they really believe that behaving professionally is an impossible task for teachers then there are other implications that flow from that. It would make it very difficult to argue that members of a religion could be science teachers or that politically active socialists could be trusted to take history lessons.

The logic of the NASUWT position means that teachers require a much greater degree of supervision and less autonomy. However I have more faith in the teaching profession than their union does though. I'm sure they can act professionally and if they can't and any teachers, BNP or not, start talking about the myth of the Holocaust during History lessons then they can be sacked for that.

In fairness there are some organisations with a track record of trying to disrupt the education of children and promoting political extremism however on balance I don't think I would ban membership of the teaching unions.

Ali Dizaei: Exclusive Footage Of His Crime.

Many people have commented on the recent troubles of bent copper Ali Dizaei. What exactly happened on that night, where his victim reportedly approached Dizaei at a party and asked to be paid for designing his website may never be truly known. Unless someone was lucky enough to have acquired footage of the entire incident, some one like me:

WTF!

I'm sure if anyone else wrote this then Yasmin Alibhai Brown would be calling for their head*:

I did try to sit through the Blair show. An unfortunate combination of Asiatic high emotion and feminine fragility made me feeble.

Via.

* Assuming her Asiatic emotions overwhelmed he feminine fragility of course.

Subliminal Racism.

The government is urging employers to use a prejudometer in order to determine how racist they are. The test is based on the Implicit Association Test produced by Harvard and supposedly determines subconsious racial prejudice. It's an interesting idea, most people demonstrate a preference for white faces in the test, in fact the results for everyone who takes the test are:

27%- Strong automatic preference for white people
27% Moderate automatic preference for white people
16%- Slight automatic preference for white people
17%- No automatic preference
6%- Slight automatic preference for black people
4%- Moderate automatic preference for black people
2%- Strong automatic preference for black people

When I took it it I scored a "Slight preference for white people", which means that at least 61% of the population have more prejudons than me. Obviously I'd hoped to to register "no preference" but my result isn't bad.

On the other hand when a liberal hand wringer who is zealous about using heavy handed measures to punish racial transgressions takes the test he discovers that he has a “strong automatic preference for European Americans compared to African Americans”.

So this is my first hypothesis; the people who are most obsessed with the idea that the general population are a simmering cauldron of racists whose prejudices need to combated by endless 'anti racism' campaigns, community outreach and all that crap are assuming that everyone in the population shares the deep felt racial prejudice that they themselves feel.

Here's my second hypothesis; the constant focus on race and racism, serves to deeped and entrench racial attitudes.

Via Obnoxio.

Sheep Rejected

The news that Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas is gay will send shockwaves throughout the principality and in truth it will probably freak out his team mates because having sex with other humans when there are plenty of sheep to go around is simply deviant behaviour in the valleys.

Cripple Spectator Blogger Fight!!!!

What's worse Rod Liddle's childish attention seeking or Alex Massie's pompous denunciation of Liddle? I'd say Massie is worse because whereas Liddle presents information in a deliberately provocative manner, Massie seems to actually object to knowledge per se:

the left's inclination to see people as members of a group rather than individuals is tedious and, often, less than productive. Which makes one wonder why you insist on doing likewise, lumping all blacks (and all muslims) together as though skin colour or religion reveal, determine or dictate everything.

The thing is though the prevalence of different behaviours among different groups, in this case crime, is an interesting phenomenon. Massie angriliy denounces Liddle for things Liddle didn't say, "that blackness is somehow the cause of these problems". Cultural differences among different groups doesn't imply that the origins are innate. As the great Thomas Sowell has frequently pointed out:

All explanations of differences between groups can be broken down into heredity and environment. Yet a world view of the history of cultural diversity seems, on the surface at least, to deny both. One reason for this is that we have thought of environment too narrowly-- as the immediate surrounding circumstances or differing institutional policies toward different groups. Environment in that narrow sense may explain some group differences, but the histories of many groups completely contradict that particular version of environment as an explanation. Let us take just two examples out of many which are available.

Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe and Italian immigrants from southern Italy began arriving in the United States in large numbers at about the same time in the late nineteenth century, and their large-scale immigration also ended at the same time, when restrictive immigration laws were passed in the 1920s. The two groups arrived here in virtually the same economic condition-- namely, destitute. They often lived in the same neighborhoods, and their children attended the same schools, sitting side by side in the same classrooms. Their environments-- in the narrow sense in which the term is commonly used-- were virtually identical. Yet their social histories in the United States have been very different.
.....
Jews are not Italians and Italians are not Jews. Anyone familiar with their very different histories over many centuries should not be surprised. Their fate in America was not determined solely by their surrounding social conditions in America or by how they were treated by American society. They were different before they got on the boats to cross the ocean, and those differences crossed the ocean with them.

In other words cultural traits, both positive and negative, don't have to be innate in order to be powerful and able to express themselves over immediate environmental factors.

Massie seems to believe that we should not allow ourselves to be aware of group differences because he prefers "to see people as individuals." Well great but if certain negative behaviours are particularly widespread among particular groups then it is going to be difficult.

As for Liddle, as I say he is being needlessly childish, but he is writing at the Spectator website, and the Speccy hordes aren't going descend en masse to Hackney to start a race riot.