Saturday, 12 July 2008

Lies, damn lies and statistics

If you were to ask a random selection of people in Britain, especially the young or those in the white community who do not live in heavily mixed race areas, which racial groups were the most likely to be the victims of racially motivated crime, in all likelihood the majority would suggest that most victims came from the black or perhaps Asian communities. Very few would guess that most victims came from amongst the indigenous white community.

Indeed, why would they? The media and any number of pressure groups regale us with images and editorials featuring large numbers of ethnic minority victims cowering before gangs of violent, racist, white thugs.

Furthermore, it is not just the media who present this image, it is the official image as presented by our elected government, and has been for at least the last decade and more. Back in 1999, the Home office published official statistics on race crime and stated categorically that “The highest risk was for Pakistani and Bangladeshi people at 4.2 per cent, followed by 3.6 per cent for Indian people and 2.2 per cent for Black people. This compared with 0.3 per cent for White people.”

Well that is what HM Government tells us, so it seems open and shut then .... or does it?

Those percentages are clearly not based on the total number of race crime victims, because, if that was the case, and they only amount to 10.3%, what groups make up the other 89.7%, Mexicans, Eskimos, the poor battered Fijians?

Oh no, these are not percentages based on the total numbers of race crime victims, they are percentages based on the number of each ethnic group who are the victims of hate crimes.

Clearly this is totally misleading, because calculated in this way, if there were only two Mongolians living in Britain, and one of them was the victim of a hate crime, Mongolians would immediately become the highest risk group, because a “staggering” 50% of them had fallen victim to hate crimes.

There can only be one explanation as to why the figures are presented in this bizarre and misleading manner, and that is that they are attempting to hide the truth. The manner in which the percentages are presented are meaningless because they ignore the vast differences in the sizes of various ethnic groups in Britain and how many people the various percentages represent.

According to the 2001 census whites made up almost 91% of the population, a total of approximately 53,462,666 of whom, according to the Home Office figures 0.3% were the victims of hate crimes (assuming the percentages had not changed in the two years since 1999) 0.3% may seem small, but it is actually 160,387 people (you do the maths)

As for Indians they were 1.8% of the population, totalling about 1,053,411 of which 3.6% were victims which amounts to 37,922

The Pakistani / Bangladeshi population was also around 1.8% or 1,030,348 people of which 4.2% or 43,274 people were race crime victims.

The total black population in 2001 was 2% of the total 1,148,738 of which 2.2% is 25,276 race crime victims.

According to my maths that makes the total 106,445 non-white victims which is 53,942 less than the total number of white victims of race crime.

That is to say that, according to the Home Office's own figures, in 1999 whites were over 90% of the population and yet they made up about 60% of the victims, put the other way round non-whites amounted to less than 10% of the population but were committing 60% of the race crimes (probably considerably more given the number of race crimes involving two different ethnic minorities and no whites.)

A survey of 2002 - 2003 racially motivated crimes, published in 2005, is less specific about white victims (I wonder why) and only refers to whites as being "less than 1%" of victims' to me that suggests that the numbers of white victims may have increased significantly from the 0.3% in 1999, (if the 2003 figure was less than 0.5% or still 0.3% they would certainly say so!!) - the figures for every other ethnic group apart from mixed race - a tiny group statistically - have fallen.

The discrepancy may be even greater given the levels of immigration over the last five years.

What makes these figures even more astounding is the hoops which white victims of black or Asian violence have to jump through (or what horrors they have to suffer ) in order to have the attacks on them treated as racist, whereas an ethnic minority victim only needs to have been attacked by a white person to be treated as the victim of a race crime.

There are various anecdotal accounts of police discouraging white victims from claiming the assaults on them were hate crimes, and there are certainly many cases where the lack of hate crime charges is hard too understand, for instance the hammer attack on Henry Webster or the murder of Christopher Yates in the latter case, can any one imagine a situation where an Asian man was kicked to death by a gang of whites, one of whom had shouted "We have killed the Asian. That will teach Paki to interfere in white business." and not have to face hate crimes charges because they had duffed up a white man, or indeed a white man and a black man, earlier that day?. No neither can I but that was the logic which applied in that trial.

Nick Griffin and the BNP have produced an excellent expose of the horrifying but hidden levels of anti white racial violence in Britain I hope that all of us make huge efforts to publish this as widely as possible, because the truth has been suppressed for far too long.

No comments: