“Liddle doesn’t believe in free speech – he simply believes in his right to say what he wants ”

Well, yes……

Good to see you’ve not lost your ability to distort through selective reading Tim.

Change ‘simply believes’ to ‘only believes’ and it’s far more accurate.

Rodney has been on the wireless.

He claims he does not understand the ruling, which only refers to his claim that the “overwhelming majority” of street crime in the capital is commited by Afro-Caribbeans, not the “rap music and goat curry” part. The PCC found the “overwhelming majority of street crime” was not true.

He claims the stats hold up, with 55% of street crime in London being committed by Afro-Caribbeans, though there may be some debate over whether this is the “overwhelming majority…would 60% be an overwhelming majority?”

He said the “rap music and goat curry” comment was “crass and badly phrased”, but it was something that was “a carry on from a previous debate on the blog”.

He said it was wrong for blogs to be held up to to the same standards as discourse in newspapers because blogs are ongoing and can be commented upon.

The PCC wallah was up next.

He said they found against Liddle because “his statement that ‘overwhelming majority of street crime was committed by Afro-Caribbeans’ was unsubstantiated”

He really then just repeated this in various ways.

Said the PCC recognises that blogs “are not the same thing as newspaper or magazines, but it was a statement of fact which he did not correct, though he could have done so”.

That is all.

Do.Not.Shoot.The.Messenger.

*YAWNS*

Tim W I’m sure you know there’s a difference between advocating free speech and expecting to get away with making inaccurate statements in newspapers when accuracy is part of the “self-regulation” system’s code of conduct.

[Although I'd agree the idea that the newspaper industry is habitually concerned with factual accuracy, particularly in columnists, is a laugh].

Can’t say I’ve heard Rod’s response to this, but if the past is anything to go by we’re talking the usual failure to distinguish criticism from OMG Stalinist totalitarianism.

After all, nobody’s forbidding Rod all the ignorant, embarrassing guff he likes – witness his recent attempt at rap rhymes, which was a bit like watching your pissed dad trying to impress your pals, going all street by throwing gangsta hands to Dizzee Rascal. It’s just that other people have free speech too, and they’ll use it to call him an ignorant tosser.

So he’s been nicked for describing 55% as an “overwhelming” majority. Sounds a bit technical. with a general election coming up, pols will have to watch their words.

“55% of street crime carried out by “Afro-Caribbeans.”

or

“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”

Liddle on being chastised changes the terms of debate, 55% of a specific class of crime is predominantly carried out by “Afro-Caribbeans.”

Oh… it seems the “evidence” he refers to is on “arrests” not “convictions.” Twat

To reiterate what LO said above, and which will probably be ignored by the Liddle-fan trolls we get, Liddle can only back up one kind of crime where a simple majority of arrests involve black youths. Not “over-whelming majority” and not for the crimes he cited, and doesn’t have the stats to back up.

In other words, Rod Liddle caught chatting out of his arse again. Not that it changes anything – this is his stock and trade. It’ll be more amusing him to watch him try and claim in the future that he absolutely abhors racism…

God, The Spectators defence of him really was dire.

I’m not sure if they couldn’t be bothered or just couldn’t but it was a dreadful defence submitted to the PCC.

As I suspected before reading it, this judgement doesn’t add any clarity to what is permitted by the PCC within a blog post on a formal media site. The PCC rules on blog sites hosted by formal media are no clearer.

The arguments were all about the “facts” contained within Liddle’s pronouncement; which were not facts, of course. The offensive sentence is polemical, which should have been the Spectator’s defence. The Speccie should have just held their hands in the air and said, “it’s a valid perception” without trying to qualify it with arguments about numbers.

We should not worship this adjudication. It sets a precedent in public opinion that polemics have to be substantiated by hard fact, and that will bring pain to bloggers and fools like me that reply.

Strange kind of liberalism we have here, sunny? you are I believe free to ignore him, I usually do.

And NO just becasue he believes that African-Caribbeans commit a disproportionate amount of crime does not make him a “hater” of said “group” or in your cultured progressive terms “racist”

To be “racist” you have to demonstrate that he believes that one group is superior to another group in a way that he is willing to see the “lower” group disadvantaged in some way, that my friend IS racism, not your catch all left wing kangaroo court interpretation, if we say its racism its racism bullshit.

A double fail, one for Rob and one for you, in my free opinion of course.

To be “racist” you have to demonstrate that he believes that one group is superior to another group in a way

I’m afraid you don’t really understand even the meaning of racism. The implication of believing one group to be inferior is that the other is superior or better. Liddle did this again later, when trying to make inferences about black kids and educational achievement – when white working class kids are usually at the bottom of the league tables.
Perhaps this might help you:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6779

You’re of course free to ignore my criticisms of Liddle if you don’t like them too.

African-Caribbeans DO commit a disproportionate amount of crime and that is a fact.

Liddle just expressed it in the wrong terms.

And that is not racist at all, just a fact.

“The implication of believing one group to be inferior is that the other is superior or better.”

That is actually racialism, not racism. Racism is about hatred.

“Good to see you’ve not lost your ability to distort through selective reading Tim.”

One of the arts of writing is to make sure that run on sentences cannot be so distorted.

“Liddle doesn’t believe in free speech – he simply believes in his right to say what he wants”

This is a reasonable definition of free speech. That someone is indeed allowed, as of right, to say what they want,

“Liddle doesn’t believe in free speech – he simply believes in his right to say what he wants without regard for facts”

This is another. And yes, I, and I would hope you, would defend the right of free speech regardless of facts. It really does mean that someone can say that it’s all the fault of the Joooos, the bankers, neoliberals or Muslims, capitalists or the Illuminati.

That is what free speech means and if you’re going to insist that proof is required then that sorta fucks R. Murphy, P Toynbee and Guardian editorials as well as anything the BNP or R. Liddle puts out.

“Liddle doesn’t believe in free speech – he simply believes in his right to say what he wants without regard for facts or any blowback.”

And that’s different again: blowback is what you (or I, whoever) provides. Not the law. The law should be about only the incitement to violence and libel. The blowback we in civil society will deal with.

You don’t like Liddle, hey, great, go for it. But don’t say “because I don’t like what he’s saying he cannot say it”. Sorry, but in a free society you’re limited to “because we’re in a free society and I don’t like what he’s said then I think less of him and I’m saying so”.

‘Coz that’s what freedom of speech means, see?

And that seems to be the whole point here.

If Liddle has actually said instead “blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime” he would have been right.

Or if he had said that “blacks were overwhelmingly the suspects in street crime” he would have been right too.

He just choose his words without due care and diligence.

But why don’t we know the conviction rate profile for these crimes when we know the arrest rate? And is it likely that the conviction profile will be far removed from the arrest profile?

Never mind anything else – I’m loving Tim’s idea that trash-talking neoliberals, capitalists and bankers is much like blaming the world’s woes on ethnic minorities. Surely some difference, I’d have thought.

I also notice that belligerent rants about militant socialism, a concept which has been more or less castrated as an international force for twenty years, aren’t included in the list of loony bugbears.

And again – Liddle isn’t off to jail, is he? Is he about to hand over a quarter of his earnings, or is it just that, you know, the PCC has been all like Tut tut, naughty to him? I mean, the situation is that he’s free to talk crap, but if the crap he talks is inaccurate, people will say so. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

“He claims the stats hold up, with 55% of street crime in London being committed by Afro-Caribbeans…”

I suspect this argument includes some bullshit interpretation of ‘street crime’, and may in fact refer to robbery, which doesn’t help the argument that he was telling the truth very much. As far as I know from getting answers to a couple of FoI requests from the Met, there isn’t a category of ‘street crime’ in their figures.

@Left Outside:

Some of the evidence is worse than just referring to arrests – it refers to a Daily Mail article that actually shows young African Caribbeans to be proceeded against in a minority of cases. It’s only when you separate out one age group that they’re proceeded against for more than half.

Darling Tim, the PCC has no legal or statutory powers. Therefore there is no freedom of speech issue here, just the blowback of civil society.

Had to join in the kicking of this guy. He aint down far enough to give up. Liddle deserves all the abuse he gets. Keep it up.

Darling Tim, the PCC has no legal or statutory powers. Therefore there is no freedom of speech issue here, just the blowback of civil society.

That doesn’t follow. An employer, a trade union, or a representative body can equally restrict freedom of speech in ways that should be challenged.

“One of the arts of writing is to make sure that run on sentences cannot be so distorted.”

In other words: Sunny is to blame for Tim quote-mining him

An employer, a trade union, or a representative body can equally restrict freedom of speech in ways that should be challenged.

Yes ok, but

a) Not in the libertarian wonderland that Tim W inhabits. There, if you don’t like the way that your employer infringes your freedom of speech, the correct course of action is to get a different job.

b) Not in this case either. Unless you want to make the case that a publication signing up to a voluntary code of conduct, breaking that code of conduct, and then being held to account, is some way analogous to someone’s boss unreasonably trampling over their freedoms.

The implication of this judgment is that factual or statistical claims made in blog posts should be accurate.

Mmm.

Are you sure everything said at LC would bear such scrutiny? Or does the fact there isn’t a print edition mean you don’t have to bother?

I understand that 75% of London’s gun-crime is carried out by black youths. That’s definitely “overwhelming.” I also understand that Liddle is going to publish all the facts and figures on his blog so we’ll soon know about the “overwhelming” street stabbings too. Oh, the joys of our multi-cultural society. I know – let’s all go out and celebrate the diversity! (But not after dark).

If Liddle had been ever so slightly more careful in his phrasing and said something like: the overwhelming majority of drug-related shootings, fatal stabbings of teenagers and gang-rape, would you have any grounds to accuse him of being a ‘racist’?

I think most people probably understood that’s the sort of thing he was on about and not punch ups after closing time at the local boozer.

If Liddle had been ever so slightly more careful in his phrasing

You mean if he’d said something which was true rather than a lie? Yes I imagine that he would have come in for slightly less stick.

But to answer your question, no. If someone believes that black people have contributed nothing to this country except for rap music and goat gurry, then that person is a ‘racist’ no matter what statistics they bandy around in support of their views. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

.

Are you sure everything said at LC would bear such scrutiny? Or does the fact there isn’t a print edition mean you don’t have to bother?

Probably not, but I think that was the point of -

I believe standards on most blogs are better than that enforced by the PCC.

If you get something wrong on a prominent blog, you’ll know about it quick sharp, ergo there’s an incentive not to do so. This isn’t the case with tabloids where the primary concern is attaching cherry picked facts to a pre-existing narrative, there’s very little incentive not to lie. When they make shit up they rarely call each other out because they’re all at it, sort of like a skatole based version of Metcalfe’s law

Come on, guys – poor lefty types have had to look on aghast for years while the right wing press has churned out a constant stream of blatant lies and slanders. Now, finally, one of these ugly bullshitters has been given a mild finger-wagging by a toothless, timid media “regulator” for an open-and-shut case of journalistic inaccuracy, and suddenly it’s OMG totalitarianism?

Please. The tabloids will push this kind of openly lying, reactionary crap with total impunity far into the forseeable future. Why not just let the lefties enjoy this minor and entirely meaningless judgement in their favour without doing the wingnut floor-tantrum bit, just this once?

Why not just let the lefties enjoy this minor and entirely meaningless judgement in their favour without doing the wingnut floor-tantrum bit, just this once?

But every time someone publicly disagrees with a wingnut, God kills a kitten! If we don’t all SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP, it’s a terrible defeat for Freedom Of Speech(tm)! Why do you want the terrorists to win?

What a welcome present indeed Sunny and great news.

Of course, rumpypumpy may have retired from here but as we can see there are plenty of defenders of his racist ideas who have, pretty much, repeated them in this thread with no recourse to facts of evidence, indeed they will no doubt point to the same unsubstantiated trash that Liddle did to found his points in the first place.

And it is that which is so very painful, to watch people falling over themselves to be racist.

I’m curious to know whether Sunny would still find Rod Liddle’s blog post offensive even if it were found to be true that “African-Caribbean youth were responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of violent crime in the capital”.
Should he still be able to write it? It still could be deemed offensive to law abiding Afro-Carribean’s

And im curious to know whether Harrisonix would still find this article offensive even if it were found to be true that “African-Caribbean youth were NOT responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of violent crime in the capital”.

Should he still be able to write it? It still could be deemed offensive to law abiding people who have half a brain.

# 31

Are you saying that African-Caribbean’s do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime and especially in London? And that you are demanding evidence to prove that they do?

Because they do, and the evidence exists and it cannot therefore be ‘racist.’

“The law should be about only the incitement to violence and libel.”

So if a newspaper writes “Tim W mugs old ladies and sleeps with goats” then you think its ok that you are entitled to sue them and get damages. But if a newspaper writes “Public school educated UKIP members commit the vast majority of muggings on old ladies and goat rape” then you think its ok for you to have no rights other than rebutting it on a blog. Even if as a result, the morons who read said newspapers go out looking for public school educated ukip members to beat up, and a political party that advocates turning public school educated ukip members into second class citizens gains elected office.

Incidently I have always thought if libel laws were changed to allow class action lawsuits, then every hedge fund in the city would be considering funding lawsuits as an investment opportunity.

“So if a newspaper writes “Tim W mugs old ladies and sleeps with goats” then you think its ok that you are entitled to sue them and get damages.”

How could I sue them? Truth is an absolute defence in a libel case.

“Because they do, and the evidence exists and it cannot therefore be ‘racist.’”

Well lets assume they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime recorded.

Now there are a number of explanations for this:

(1) African Carribbeans are natural born criminals
(2) African Carribbeans are culturally criminal
(3) African Carribbeans are disproportionately poor, and poor people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Therefore African Carribbeans committ crime because they are poor, not because they are afro carribbean.
(4) African Carribbeans face discrimination in employment, and education, therefore crime appears a more realistic and attractive option to young African Carribbeans than young white males.
(5) African Carribbeans are just as likely to be criminals as any other group in society, but police procedures, profiling and enforcement activity targets areas where African Carribbeans are more likely to live. This means African Carribbean criminals are more likely to be caught than criminals from other groups, and hence the statistics reflect this.
(6) The crime statistics may show that African Carribbeans committ a disproportionate amount of crime. But the statistics are bollocks, and reflect political priorities.

There are also numerous other explanations in the criminalogy literature, and theories as to why this is the case. But Rod Liddle and the BNP morons not so much fail to account for this, but are so utterly ignorant of basic criminlogy that they dont even know there is such thing as literature on the issue.

Rod Liddle takes an apparent statistical fact (which when challenged, turned out not to be the case), and goes straight for the most negative interpretation of why that is the case, ignoring the alternative explanations and interpretations, and then uses the apparent fact to support authoritarian measures against an entire community. Its textbook racism, and the fact that many fail to see this is further evidence of the shocking political ignorance of the UK population with regards to what racism is.

Lets try another way of putting it.

“Men are responsible for the majority of violent crime. Therefore policies that limit the freedom of men, and the amount of men in our society are desirable things”

Is this sensible commentary or sexism?

If I can produce statistics to prove it does it move from sexism to sensible commentary?

@37 – Excellent comment

# 37

Well you have gone into one over a simple statement of fact that African-Caribbean’s do commit a disproportionate amount of crime and that was the point being made; if Liddle had phrased his piece slightly differently he would have been correct.

But out of interest, which of your theory’s do you think is the right one? I don’t know and I am not putting any argument forward, my only point was the one above.

But I can see faults with a few aspects of your arguments as certainly in this country with its non-discriminatory welfare system there is no basis for racial delineated poverty because surely the poorest Asian or white is just as poor as the poorest black with the fallback to the minimum income the law provides for welfare?

And as far as I can see if there is any discrimination in employment it is against the white heterosexual able bodied community as I have never seen any job advert say that applications from this group are especially welcome; as far as the law goes, discrimination, or affirmative action (positive discrimination) is only legal in favour of ethnic applicants so where discrimination exists it is legal and in the favour of black people.

As for a conspiracy involving the police using apartheid style tactics in this day and age and being able to keep it secret (and to what end?) I just think that is incredible just as it would be with the police being able to completely ignore areas of comparable endemic ‘white crime’ to target ‘black areas’ instead and besides, it is not the police who convict people but primarily juries made up of peers from the local area who invariably include a good racial mix.

But as Liddle was cited for not providing evidence for his precise allegations can you provide any for yours?

You could say that men are responsible for the majority of violent crime and be correct but that only presents a small piece of the picture. You could also say that black men are disproportionately responsible for certain types of violent crime and that too would correct but still a small part of the picture.

But when you can say the 75% of gun crime in London involves black people and that is quite obviously not just hugely disproportionate but the majority factor in gun crime in London itself then it is more then reasonable to highlight that fact and investigate it.

Breaking News! Breaking News!

Rod Liddle’s reply today in the Spectator:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5880178/a-bizarre-and-incoherent-adjudication.thtml

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – it gets a bit boring if people just sit behind their lines and shoot outwards all the time.

There’s lots of meat in this whole story that would be interesting to get into, but always seems impossible to.

Liddle has given an new account today – is there anything in it?
I’d love to be able to hear from some serving and retired police officers on an issue such as this. Are they really such racists? Were they back in 1981?

Is there a cultural thing going on with the inner city youth today that might include race? You’d think so from just spending time on the ground in different parts of the capital.
Maybe that’s why cab drivers get called ”reactionary bigots” so often by liberal people – because they’re actually out and about there every day in a way most people are not.

This is not a defence of Liddle btw, – just that I’d like to see the debate broadened out.

Who’s next? Mad Mel and some of those Telegraph Bloggers?

@40:

Jeez. Did no-one ever tell Liddle ‘if you’re in a hole, stop digging’?

Sunny i hope you enjoyed your time back packing around low crime SE Asia. Bangkok (where I have lived on and off for twenty years) is famously safe to stroll around late at night unlike most western hemisphere cities.

What is missing from Bangkok I wonder? Poor people – no. Disadvantaged people – no. Err….?

Next time go to Rio.

Most comments on this website are pathetically naive and unworldly it makes me sick to my stomach.

Dave. Thanks for the put down. Quite the style on this blog. Surely it still hinges on whether it’s true.

I can’t help but notice that there are a lot of appeals to engage with what Rod didn’t say in this thread. Why do we think that is, in a thread about what Rod did actually say and got busted for, I wonder?

Update – I don’t really wonder.

FlyingRodent, what was the point of those comments?

Re: 43

Yeah, couldn’t be anything to do with the endemic heroin abuse in Thailand, and the fact Brazilians can’t afford it.

Pro tip: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Regardless of how long you’ve lived in SEA ‘on and off’, you seem about as worldly as a gap year student.

Flying Rodent’s comments had plenty of point as once again we are snowed under with racists and apologists for racism.

And well said to Gwyn at 48, there are some dumb folks frequenting these parts.

There’s lots of meat in this whole story that would be interesting to get into, but always seems impossible to.

Perhaps because Liddle is too busy trying to be controversial.

Liddle has given an new account today – is there anything in it?
I’d love to be able to hear from some serving and retired police officers on an issue such as this. Are they really such racists? Were they back in 1981?

Some were. Some are, I expect – just as some of the rest of the public are.

Is there a cultural thing going on with the inner city youth today that might include race? You’d think so from just spending time on the ground in different parts of the capital.

This begs the question, in terms of burglary is there a cultural thing going on with white people that might include race?

And what do we do about it if there is?

Or is there an much more interesting, complicated and potentially helpful story here as Planeshift outlined @37?

ukliberty

Perhaps because Liddle is too busy trying to be controversial.

I agree, he hasn’t helped by being so lazy and provocative and wrong in his facts.

So then when he gets a little more serious and starts mentioning people like Tony Sewell, it’s easy to continue to ignore him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/5165814.stm

There is discrimination against ethnic minority people in many areas – but I haven’t been convinced that black children are being discriminated against in school by teachers.

Diane Abbott gave that as a reason as to why she didn’t want her son going to a local comprehensive. I thought she was being disingenuous to the teachers of Hackney for saying that.
I thought the real reason was that she didn’t want her son to mix too closely with local black kids at school.

Boys like AJ Nakasila and his pal Trebla.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyCOusMxGGo

Maybe Liddle is a good rod for deflecting comment away from these underlying problems of poverty and street culture.

This is AJ Nakasila’s story.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/i4i+aj+nakasila+biography/1394447

Daniel # 49

I don’t see that at all here. I just don’t. I simply see people debating and hypothesising that Liddle’s choice of ‘overwhelming’ was unwise and maybe that simply a more precise definition followed by ‘most’ or ‘disproportionate’ should have been used instead.

Perhaps you would care to qualify your comment and accusations of ‘racists’ and ‘racism’ with actual proof and reason, seeing as this is the very theme of the post, and if you are unable to do so perhaps you could stop devaluing the word by such casual usage.

Josh:

Well I do see that here, in bucket loads, so we’ll agree to disagree. And it is not just about the wording, it is about the basic premise of much of what Liddle says is wrong.

Also I will not highlight particular posters or comments that I think are racist, unfortunately, it is necessary here to keep accusations general, otherwise the thread will descend into a slagging match.

Why do people keep popping up to point out that if Liddle had said something else he might have been right?

Worst. Defence. Ever.

Daniel # 53

Oh come on now, that is one giant cop out. You make extremely serious allegations but yet you cannot back them up, precisely what you are ostensibly condemning Liddle for. Immensely hypocritical.

5cc # 54

I think there is considerable merit to it considering the PCC ruled in instance that 55% does not constitute an “overwhelming” majority thereby placing very much a semantic theme into the proceedings.

If Liddle had specified which types of street crime he was referring he could have proved ‘overwhelming’ just as if he had continued to generalise but used ‘disproportionate’ instead he would have been correct.

I cannot for the life of me see how this kind of debate is racist in anyway. I really can’t.

There is a new thread here about Simon Singh and the words that he used to describe members of the British Chiropractic Association. Thankfully, Simon was not found to be a libeller.

The Guardian reports: “Following today’s ruling, Singh’s comments are recognised by the court as a matter of opinion which did not imply that the BCA was being consciously dishonest.

On the steps of the court, Singh, who faces further court action, described the ruling as “brilliant” but added: “It is extraordinary this action has cost £200,000 to establish the meaning of a few words.”"

Don’t the same criteria apply to Ron Liddle? Couldn’t he express an opinion, as ill founded as it was?

5cc @ 54:

I suggest that’s because Liddle has been pilloried here to such an extent that the content, delivery and intent of his writings have each been criticised largely without considering if there is any substance at all. So by pointing out that he was too loose in saying “The overwhelming majority” rather than “a disproportionate number” is highlighting that it was his emphasis that led to the PCC censure rather than the topic itself.

This is a shame because by setting some some conversations ‘off limits’ does us absolutely no favours in the long run. Just think of Peter Tatchell’s statement of defence for the nut-job who was fined and criminalised for saying religiously inspired homophobic comments instead of being challenged to show them to be utter nonsense.

That is the proper response to deal with an issue you disagree with – challenge it don’t just call names as has been (and still is) done here.

“overwhelming majority” rather than “a disproportionate number”

Those mean completely different things. You should not conflate them to obfurcate.

The “evidence” which Liddle provided to the PCC does not refer to convictions and is therefore (I would argue) inadmissible as evidence to support his statement.

The only thing submitted to the PCC which approaches something supporting Liddle is the 55.1% figure quoted above. But a majority is not an overwhelming majority.

But more importantly it is a majority of people taken to court in a three month period. Not convictions. Not a large enough sample to be representative. 224 data points during a quarter of a year isn’t enough.

FFS, Liddle wrote that two black men beating a pregnant woman and then pushing her into a canal is not an anomaly (IOW he claimed it is usual for black men to do this to pregnant women), wrote 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” (he failed to substantiate this claim and has been proved wrong) and then, “in return, we have rap music, goat curry”.

Then he complained about being called racist and being taken to task about his ‘statistics’. It’s farcical.

He priorities provocation and controversy over the facts. His organ is signed up to the PCC, the PCC delivered its ruling. There is no controversy here except that which he created.

Read Planeshift’s comment @37 for what someone more reasonable could write about if so inclined; something that in just 191 words is far more thought-provoking and helpful than Liddle’s excretion.

Josh:

Bollocks and to be frank, I am deeply suspicious of yet another anonymous commentator turning up in a thread to do with race/immigration/any of the hot button topics that round here draw out the bigots from the woodwork.

Also, as you are someone who has not been commenting here often, or at least not as long as I have (which compared to many is not that long in itself) you’d know what happens when it moves to the specific, that surely is common sense and if I make it clear that is not what I want to get into then that is pretty clear.

Unless you’re thick.

I used to liken him to Bill Kristol but he’s so much better, he plays his audience like a fiddle, I’ve got to respect him for that, he’s absolutely outstanding at his job.

If I didn’t know better I’d suspect he was schizophrenic, notice how ‘today editor’ Liddle comes out in place of ‘kick her in the cunt, wahey I’m right working class, me’ Liddle when it’s convenient, he’s very introspective and considered towards the end of his ‘reply’.

Gun Crime: Two years ago Metropolitan Police Inspector Steven Tyler, who worked for Operation Trident, stated that 75 per cent of all shootings in the capital involved a black victim and a black perpetrator. These are the only figures we have right now, or at least the only ones I could find.

Unless he also cited a primary source, he didn’t ‘state’ anything, he claimed it.

There’s some trident boilerplate knocking around on the ‘stop the guns’ website and the three in four claim appears in The Times and The Telegraph but none provide a primary source. The PCC didn’t accept ‘some bloke with a vested interest said’ as a definitive source, nor should they have done. Not like the police would ever lie or anything.

A confidential report leaked from Scotland Yard in 2008 suggested that of those convicted of knife crime, 55.1 per cent were young black males. The report added that the “overwhelming majority” of victims were white, although I did not make this point in my blog. These figures were reported in the Daily Mail. Now, this was the only substantive objection which the PCC made of the figures – to the effect that 55.1 per cent does not constitute an “overwhelming” majority. Well, maybe, sure. It constitutes a “substantial” or perhaps a “clear” majority. But we are dancing on the head of a pin here – in any case, if you take an average of ALL the percentages for the crimes I specified, then it is certainly an overwhelming majority.

Hmmmm, this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036833/Over-half-young-knife-suspects-black-Scotland-Yard-figures-reveal.html) Mail report Rod?

In the 18-29 age bracket, 312 people were accused of knife offences from April 1. Of these 125 were white and 115 black.

Credit – 5cc for the following.

It’s worth saying again though, it’s understandable that readers would walk away with the wrong impression from that article. The headline ‘Over half of young knife suspects are black, Scotland Yard figures reveal‘ sets the scene for an article about how much knife crime black people are responsible for. Here’s how the article manages to create a false impression of the stats it reports without really lying:

* It opens with figures from the only age group that show black people making up the majority of those proceeded against.
* It follows by falsely claiming that most victims in that age group are white.
* After the false claim, the article splits crimes where the ethnicity of the victim has been recorded (mindful to point out that the majority of victims in these cases in this age group are white) from crimes where it hasn’t – revealing that the ethnicity of the vast majority of victims is in fact unknown.
* The reason offered for this is that these people may be black gang members who won’t report anything to the police – so the article has its cake and eats it.
* It goes on to report that there had been 16 teenagers murdered in London so far that year – without pointing out that only three of them were white.
* There’s a pull out table of stats that only includes figures from the only age group that the majority of people proceeded against to be black.
* These stats are placed alongside the one for victims’ ethnicity, which makes it look like the people in the first half of the table are responsible for the crimes with the victims on the other half.
* The article moves on figures from the 18-29 age group, which also includes a high proportion of black people proceeded against, and slips to the total from all age groups.

Dacre, the chairman of the PCC probably knew what his paper had done and rather admit what a worthless piece of shit his publication is, decided to mince about with the figures regarding what constitutes an ‘overwhelming’ majority, two serial liars going at it, what a thing to behold.

Street Crime Robbery: (Lets put aside that he’s now unified the mysterious forces of ‘street crime’ and ‘robbery’ which in his initial claims, were separate, perhaps he’s forced them together to create ‘mugging’ you might think, well, no, he’s smudged them together because his entire ‘explanation’ is hastily cobbled together post hoc) Again, the only figures we have to hand come from a report in The Sunday Times a little over a year ago in which it was reported that 71 per cent of people accused of mobile phone theft were young black males. There were further figures quoted for other cities. I think 71 per cent constitutes an overwhelming majority.

So do I, unfortunately for you 71% of accusations constitutes absolutely nothing, you’ve taken a stick to a gunfight there haven’t you Rod.

FWIW, the report he cites (as far as I can tell, as again he doesn’t actually cite a source in the manner serious Journalists do) was not ‘little over a year ago’ it was actually a little over eight years ago. I found it on what I can only describe as a very odd website (ran by a man who believes a black postman is spitting on his unemployment benefit) Liddle surely has unfettered access to the Nexis, he could look that up very easily if he wanted to, why didn’t he?

Allow me to quote from said report.

Last week new estimates based on a survey of selected cities across the country suggested that the total number of thefts involving mobile phones, whether from the person or from unattended bags, cars and the like, could be as high as 330,000 a year. That in itself was alarming, but more controversial still was the revelation that in four of the six regions studied, the highest proportion of suspects were black.

In the Metropolitan police area, 71% of people accused of mobile phone theft were black; in Bristol the figure was 63%; in Birmingham 54%. The trend was reversed in Stockport where 76% of such thefts were reported to involve white suspects compared with 1% black.

Woooooooah there, estimates? surveys? extrapolations then? Not actual arrest statistics?

Liddle claims there are ‘no other figures’ – he is of course being conservative with the truth, there are, they’re just not as granular as he’d like, or they don’t agree with him (http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/stats-race-criminal-justice-system-07-08-revised.pdf) so he’s content to cherry pick from heterogeneous sources over an eight year time period to make one very sweeping normative statement.

I can’t be bothered wasting any more time on this so I’ll concede the gang rape issue, it’s likely true anyway as the chap Liddle cites actually has a primary source, one out of four, is, well, shit.

Not that it matters if he’s right or wrong, ‘everyone knows’ and anyone who doesn’t is guilty of, well, he has to get in a mention of the phrase that pays. Take deep breath, insert dog whistle.

I think it matters only insofar as it is habitually denied for reasons of political correctness; in other words, so that the problem becomes almost impossible to address.

Tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot.

Yeah you fackin tell ‘em rod, fackin pc brigade, can’t say anyfink nowadays, fackin cants, I didn’t die face dahhhhn on a beach in normandee for this bolllll-ocks.

Allow me to finish with a rather pertinent quote from the Times report, circa 2002.

“There’s a culture around toughness and easy gain. Deviant behaviour is regarded as successful.”

It most certainly is, if you’re really good at it you can end up with a column in a national magazine, free access to national radio and television and perhaps very nearly end up the editor of a national newspaper.

Daniel # 60

I see. So instead of substantiating your extremely serious allegations as well as proving that you are not hypocrite you decide to insinuate that that I am “thick” and God only knows other sinister accusation you are alluding to, all whilst maintaining that you cannot back up your original extremely serious accusations because it would descend the thread into “a slagging match.”

What an idiot.

I think there is considerable merit to it considering the PCC ruled in instance that 55% does not constitute an “overwhelming” majority thereby placing very much a semantic theme into the proceedings.

Trouble is, the PCC never said 55% didn’t constitute an ‘overwhelming majority’. That’s Liddle’s own interpretation of the adjudication, based on his own interpretation of the facts, which is more than a little generous to himself.

Liddle never provided evidence that shows “of those convicted of knife crime, 55.1 per cent were young black males” as he claims. He referenced a Daily Mail article that showed that of 741 people proceeded against (i.e. not yet convicted) for knife crime in a three month period, 124 of them were under 18 and black. That’s 16.75%. You only get 55.1% of you look only at the number of people under 18.

The PCC only mention the raw figures for under 18s, not the 55.1% figure, so it’s likely they looked at the Mail article and realised it didn’t show that young black men were responsible for a majority of knife crimes at all, let alone an overwhelming one.

If Liddle had specified which types of street crime he was referring he could have proved ‘overwhelming’ just as if he had continued to generalise but used ‘disproportionate’ instead he would have been correct.

Yeah, but he didn’t. And he couldn’t for the specific ones he chose.

I cannot for the life of me see how this kind of debate is racist in anyway. I really can’t.

The PCC said nothing about racism. It said something about accuracy.

I suspect people are calling what he said was racist is because what he did say (which was inaccurate) was sandwiched between claims that two young black men who conspire to murder a woman because she’s pregnant with one of their children, who he described as ‘human filth’ were not anomalies and that “rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us.”

I know that’s why I think it is.

That last should have been addressed to Josh @55.

rumpypumpy @57:

This is a shame because by setting some some conversations ‘off limits’ does us absolutely no favours in the long run.

Yeah, conversations about how ‘human filth’ black men who try to kill a woman who is pregnant with one of their children are not anomalies and all we get in return is rap music and goat curry – all backed up with inaccurate statistics – are off limits.

It’s political correctness gone mad.

For a proper look at the issue of a large number of black people being proceeded against for crimes, see post 37.

OK.

If Liddle had said that black people are the “overwhelming majority” in the statistics that we do have in the areas of gun crime, knife crime, mobile phone robbery and gang rape he would have been spot on. And these are the areas that most people would associate with ‘street crime.’ As it was, in generalising he should have limited it to “disproportionate.”

And one figure we do know, that there are five times more black youngsters in prison then whites, would really seem to substantiate that the overwhelming majority of street crime does involve black people, unless someone is going to argue that they were actually incarcerated for white collar crimes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/black_crime.shtml

But then again, I suppose you could claim (without proof) that there is some gigantic underground racist conspiracy to imprison innocent black people but for that lunacy to be true it must also involve the jury pools from the local areas that convicted them too, many of which would have been the same race as the defendant.

You cannot ignore the facts we do have by pointing to the deliberate failure of the government to validate them or refute them. Surely the government could end such speculation based upon know figures with definite figures if it was beneficial?

As for what the government know in this regard and the head of the government at that not so long ago we had this:

“Tony Blair yesterday claimed the spate of knife and gun murders in London was not being caused by poverty, but a distinctive black culture…

He said people had to drop their political correctness and recognise that the violence would not be stopped “by pretending it is not young black kids doing it”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/apr/12/ukcrime.race

Either ways, the government and Home Office did acknowledge that there was indeed a “disproportionate number of black youths in the criminal justice” even if it disagreed with their leaders analysis for the reason.

So whichever way you look at it guys, Liddle was correct in premise but wrong in wording.

I think we can all agree that if Rod was talking sense instead of bullshit, he would not have been bullshitting. Also, if your auntie had a cock, she’d be your uncle.

He has been banging on in this vein for some years now.
Were his arguments a bit more together back in 2005?

For example, did you know that black and Asian women commit far more crime than their white counterparts? Almost one third of the total female British prison population is drawn from black and Asian communities.

Or is it typical ”Im not a racist, but …” kind of speaking?

He goes on to ask why is (was) the female prison population 29% black and asian. Was it down to a racist criminal justice system?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article516629.ece

I’m sure there is a conversation worth having, between Liddle’s opinion in this piece, and Planeshift’s views @37. But it would be nice if the accusations of racism and trolling could be left out of it, as it makes things difficult.

Liddle is obviously being difficult and wilfully ignorant in his Spectator blog, but I know that many liberals and leftists don’t like anything that is ”critical”.
This black American gets severely criticised for writing articles like this.

Not long ago, I was having lunch in a KFC in Harlem, sitting near eight African-American boys, aged about 14. Since 1) it was 1:30 on a school day, 2) they were carrying book bags, and 3) they seemed to be in no hurry, I assumed they were skipping school. They were extremely loud and unruly, tossing food at one another and leaving it on the floor.

Black people ran the restaurant and made up the bulk of the customers, but it was hard to see much healthy “black community” here. After repeatedly warning the boys to stop throwing food and keep quiet, the manager finally told them to leave. The kids ignored her. Only after she called a male security guard did they start slowly making their way out, tauntingly circling the restaurant before ambling off. These teens clearly weren’t monsters, but they seemed to consider themselves exempt from public norms of behavior—as if they had begun to check out of mainstream society.

What struck me most, though, was how fully the boys’ music—hard-edged rap, preaching bone-deep dislike of authority—provided them with a continuing soundtrack to their antisocial behavior. So completely was rap ingrained in their consciousness that every so often, one or another of them would break into cocky, expletive-laden rap lyrics, accompanied by the angular, bellicose gestures typical of rap performance. A couple of his buddies would then join him. Rap was a running decoration in their conversation.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_how_hip_hop.html

Hesh @ 66,

If Liddle had said…

He didn’t; get over it.

there are five times more black youngsters in prison then whites

Sorry but you don’t appear to know what you’re talking about. The 1xtra page you linked to does not claim that. It is about likelihood, no doubt based on the official figures. The figures for 07/08 claim there are five times more ‘Black’ people in prison per capita than there are White people. But, given the disproportionate number of stops and searches (black 8 times white, per capita) and arrests (black five times white, per capita), this doesn’t surprise.

And one figure we do know, that there are five times more black youngsters in prison then whites, would really seem to substantiate that the overwhelming majority of street crime does involve black people,

Non sequitur.

you could claim (without proof) that there is some gigantic underground racist conspiracy to imprison innocent black people but for that lunacy to be true it must also involve the jury pools from the local areas that convicted them too, many of which would have been the same race as the defendant.

What juries? Magistrates deal with a large number of these cases (if not the ‘overwhelming majority’). We could claim that there is a reason blacks and Asians are more likely to be stopped and searched and arrested

I can’t be bothered with the rest. But again, saying black this, black that doesn’t help. It doesn’t inform the situation at all. It does not aid us in arriving at a reasonable conclusion about how to rectify the issues. Again I point you to Planeshift @37.

Forgot to add that ‘Mixed’, ‘Asians’, ‘Chinese and other’, and ‘Not stated/unknown’ are over-represented in those crime statistics too. And whites under-represented.

But let’s keep banging on about blacks.

damon,

I’m sure there is a conversation worth having, between Liddle’s opinion in this piece, and Planeshift’s views @37. But it would be nice if the accusations of racism and trolling could be left out of it, as it makes things difficult.

I doubt anyone would accuse Planeshift@37 of racism and trolling because there is nothing there that a reasonable person would see as racist. But I think a reasonable person might think Liddle is racist on reading that black men beating a pregnant woman and pushing her into a canal is not an anomaly and all we get in return is goat curry.

Clue: don’t say things that reasonable people will think are racist if you don’t want to be accused of being racist. I don’t understand why people are having a hard time comprehending this.

We could claim that there is a reason blacks and Asians are more likely to be stopped and searched and arrested

I didn’t finish this sentence and don’t have the time right now.

If Rod Liddle had stated that a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by members of the African Carribean Community he would factually have been correct. That is not a racist comment but figuratively it would be true. Having said that we would then need to look at why so many repeat offenders commit such a large amount of offences, whether the crime figures are factual considering that many crimes go unrecorded especially those committed against the black community because they see the Police as ineffective, they see on a daily basis the mismanagement of crime statistics because it suits a Government in turmoil and they also see how racial tension is increasing through policies that give inequality a top hat and tails.

If Rod Liddle had said something sensible rather than a bunch of silly bollocks, people wouldn’t have filled this comments threads with lengthy hypotheticals about what Rod Liddle might have said, had he not determined to act like a tool for the entertainment of the hideous freaks who enjoy his work.

Plus, if a frog had wings, it wouldn’t bump its arse on the ground.

36. Tim Worstall

‘ How could I sue them? Truth is an absolute defence in a libel case. ‘

It depends on the libel. Proving a statement is true is not a defence in seditious libel. I don’t think we need worry about it as seditious libel is committed most days on here and in the newspapers and no one is likely to haul us in front of a court.

Josh:

With your tone and persistence and refusal to see what I’m talking about (as well as actually proving my point for me) I am sensing a common theme with other new posters that have taken umbrage with me…

Not using a Carphone Warehouse ISP perchance are you?

Aren’t you bored yet?

ukliberty @71. If this thread is about what Liddle said – and only what Liddle said in that Spectator blog then OK – everything else is off topic.
What he said in the Sunday Times in 2005? Off toppic.
Anything about the wider issues about black boys in inner city English cities – like the link I did about AJ Nakasila …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyCOusMxGGo
– is off topic. It’s only about what Liddle actually said in that one article.

Any talk of why Diane Abbott sent her sun to private school, or Tony Sewell’s attempts to help black boys achieve their potential through his youth programme, and any bringing of John McWhorter into the discussion – again, all off topic.

And you are right. I was being off topic. Liddle’s article deserved censure.
But leaving it at that, is going for the easiest of targets IMO.

I still think planeshift’s comment @37 about discrimination education could do with some explaination.

Damon @77, I don’t understand where you’re coming from; I don’t recall saying you were being off-topic. I’m happy to talk about things other than Liddle.

Any talk of why Diane Abbott sent her sun to private school, or Tony Sewell’s attempts to help black boys achieve their potential through his youth programme, and any bringing of John McWhorter into the discussion – again, all off topic.

I don’t know why Abbott sent her son to private school. Sewell appears to want to give black boys a better chance than he thinks they will have without his intervention. I can’t add to that, which is why I didn’t attempt to.

ukliberty,

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

In your fantasy world, the fact that black youngsters are five times more likely to be in prison doesn’t ‘mean’ that they are, but then it does ‘no doubt based on official figures’?!

What?!

And is it any surprise that black youngster are more likely to be stopped and searched when even an extreme left prime minister says that they the majority of the group that are endemically shooting and stabbing people in London? Don’t you think the police wouldn’t be doing their job properly if they didn’t stop people committing crime or more likely to? Don’t you think the head of government is in a better position to know the actual figures behind the crimes he cites then you?

And why have you put the word black in quotes marks? But not the word white?

Also if people want a trial by jury they can still have one on most offences, but this conspiracy to criminalise black people now involves all magistrates as well by your reckoning?

And again, I refer @ 38 where I pulled apart that absurd list of excuses.

Sorry ukliberty, I shouldn’t have directed those comments solely at you.
It was more a theme I picked up through the thread as a whole – with people complaining about ”the usual trolls” turning up, and how it wasn’t a matter of what he could have said but about what he did say, period

I have come to think that this issue (around racism, disadvantage and crime etc) is one that’s not really up for discussion – but to be fought over. And Planeshift’s comments @37 are about where the liberal left draw their battle lines – and outside of following that ”line” pretty closely is to be considered heretical, and therefore attacked.

As for Diane Abbott – now that her son is past high school age, she is back on message praising Hackney comprehensive schools – because they are so much better now she says. But still speaks of ”teacher racism” like here below:

“Black Caribbean pupils are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded—3 times more likely than White pupils.”

The Minister will probably say that is because of their class background and the fact they have special educational needs. In fact, even when that figure is controlled, for the take-up of free school meals, which is a rough and ready indicator of class and special educational needs, black Caribbean pupils are still 2.6 times more likely to be permanently excluded. Black pupils are routinely punished more harshly, praised less, told off more often and are 1.5 times more likely than white pupils to be identified as having behaviour related to special educational needs.

http://www.dianeabbott.org.uk/news/speeches/news.aspx?p=102413

I’m not saying that it’s not a hugely difficult issue though – but I have found that there is one place where leftists and liberals will just not go – not even give the idea a few minutes consideration like I do, is when someone raises ideas ‘therapeutic alienation’.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:UJacjLzK0e0J:www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_chicsuntimes-defiance.htm+john+mcwhorter+therapeutic+alienation&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

Or even more crudely, ”acting white”, as being part of the reason for poorer preformances from black high school boys, which leads to lower life chances.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Tg1WRuTkMlMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting_white+john+mcwhorter+acting+white&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk

Maybe forums such as this are not the place for such a discussion though, as it is such a contentious issue.

Hesh,

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

In your fantasy world, the fact that black youngsters are five times more likely to be in prison doesn’t ‘mean’ that they are, but then it does ‘no doubt based on official figures’?!

What?!

You wrote, “there are five times more black youngsters in prison then whites”. There aren’t. There are five times more per capita than whites – there, I’ve made it even more clear for you. There is an order of magnitude more (that means add a 0 on the end) of whites in prison than blacks.

Don’t you think the head of government is in a better position to know the actual figures behind the crimes he cites then you?

I didn’t argue with the government’s figures – I used them in support of my post.

Also if people want a trial by jury they can still have one on most offences, but this conspiracy to criminalise black people now involves all magistrates as well by your reckoning?

You wrote that your opponents in the argument must imagine some loony conspiracy involving juries. I replied that juries aren’t involved in most such cases as the OP discussed. I didn’t say there is a conspiracy.

Try again.

Daniel # 76

I see. Yet again you cannot even begin to justify your extremely serious allegations of ‘racists’ and ‘racism’ levelled at people on this thread that exists to condemn Liddle for making accusations he couldn’t justify.

Instead you make more bizarre insinuations of some sort of sinister conspiracy after alluding that I am “thick” and then even more bizarrely claim that you cannot back up your original extremely serious accusations because it would descend the thread into “a slagging match.”

Once again, what an idiot you are.

Cue more weirdness from you, but no proof of your allegations.

Josh, this is boring man, you come back to have the last word in a comment thread, I made it pretty clear to you that I will not pick out the specific comments and comment authors to avoid what is not occurring right here with you, which is a daft bitch fight.

Deal with it.

damon @80,

Sorry ukliberty, I shouldn’t have directed those comments solely at you.
It was more a theme I picked up through the thread as a whole – with people complaining about ”the usual trolls” turning up, and how it wasn’t a matter of what he could have said but about what he did say, period

I have come to think that this issue (around racism, disadvantage and crime etc) is one that’s not really up for discussion – but to be fought over. And Planeshift’s comments @37 are about where the liberal left draw their battle lines – and outside of following that ”line” pretty closely is to be considered heretical, and therefore attacked.

I see Planeshift’s comments @37 as sensible lines of enquiry rather than battle lines. It is true that some researchers have expressed concern about possible criticism for investigating potential correlations between ethnicities and crime rates. But it is also true that they have nonetheless done it and, as far as I can tell, not received the same opprobrium as Liddle. But then, researchers tend not to refer to people as ‘human filth’ or that it is typical of particular ethnicities to attempt murder. Putting that aside…

Pick a region, any region. Look at the crime rates in the region, look at which ethnicity is over-represented in the stats. The inferences drawn by some (e.g. Liddle) are that ‘the individuals of that ethnicity in that region are responsible for proportionately more crime’ (true) and therefore that ‘people of that ethnicity are predisposed to commit proportionately more crime’ (non sequitur). And, therefore, that ‘multiculturalism’ is bad (R. Liddle) – another non sequitur.

Looking at the literature, it seems the correlation between ethnicity and such crimes as we’re talking about (street crime, knife crime etc) is weak if it exists at all; the major correlates appear to be gender, age, unemployment, poverty in a region of overall wealth… if Liddle lived in Glasgow, he’d complain about ‘Asians’, if in Manchester he’d complain about – wait for it – ‘white British’.