Phan,
The charmless groteque in a 'filthy white tracksuit', sporting 'bad teeth' sounds like a member of that transient, dependency culture, 'the Underclass'. She is hardly representative of the average white Briton. Of course most crime is committed by whites. Census returns inform us that Britain is nearly 96% 'white' in ethnic terms. However, certain ethnic minority groups are over-represented in crime, in other words, as a community they tend to commit crime out of proportion to their demographic numbers. A Times report in 2003 gave a breakdown of each of Britain's different ethnic groups in jail. Of every 100,000 of the white population, 176 are in jail. For Indians, it is 86, Pakistanis 278, Bangladeshis 101 [often lumped together as 'British Asians'], and for blacks of all origins, it is 1,249.

This last figure is extraordinary. Yet, we know that no headlines today would refer to a 'black crimewave', not merely because nobody wants to be accused of being 'racist', but also because the figures are suffice to prompt abject despair. Nevertheless, let us extrapolate. If 1.25 per cent of the entire black population of the UK are currently in jail, this probably means that [a conservative estimate] 7-8 per cent of 16-25 year old black males. So, what percentage of black males will go to jail at some point in their lives? 20%? 25%? 30%?. Perhaps, for many black youths, imprisonment does not represent a delinquent departure from the norm, but the actual cultural norm itself.

It is no good pretending that these figures can be explained away by 'institutional racism', and equally idle to suppose that such figures have no effect on Police perceptions of the Afro-Caribbean community, or white attitudes towards that community. The situation won't be solved either by recruiting more black Police Officers. The Jamaican police force is almost entirely black, which does not alter for a second the fact that the homicide rate is more than 20 times higher than the UK's.

By the way, Phan, your boast [as an 'immigrant'] to 'take' Britain , although admittedly phrased in a jokey way complete with 'smiley', is to an extent what all the fuss is about. There are problems with large-scale migrations of people. Sooner or later, the indigenous community will turn around and say, 'Hang on a minute, this is ours'. Primitive, perhaps, but true. No lectures on multiculturalism or 'Britain=a nation of immigrants' will alter that basic fact. Dear Mr Powell tried to tell us this years ago.

Originally posted by timo
Sooner or later, the indigenous community will turn around and say, 'Hang on a minute, this is ours'.

But is it? We happen to live on this particular piece of geograpy and (more or less - and arguably increasingly less) engage in the social contract of Englishness, but does that make either the patch of dirt or the social contract "ours"?

Originally posted by evildrneil
But is it? We happen to live on this particular piece of geograpy and (more or less - and arguably increasingly less) engage in the social contract of Englishness, but does that make either the patch of dirt or the social contract "ours"?

in which case what's to stop anyone taking a patch of that dirt?

Ownership of land has been fairly well established and is basically intrinsic to our economy.
So I think that it is fair for us to claim particular bits as ours, and collectively the whole nation as 'ours'.

Originally posted by Cyclone
in which case what's to stop anyone taking a patch of that dirt?

More social contracts (i.e. international law) unless you are powerfull enough to ignore them

Ownership of land has been fairly well established and is basically intrinsic to our economy.
So I think that it is fair for us to claim particular bits as ours, and collectively the whole nation as 'ours'.

But that certainly doesnt allow an "indigenous population" (whatever that may be!) to claim the geography and sociology as "theirs" - anyone may come in and purchase land and pay lip service to the social contract and doesnt that make it just as much theirs as any land-owning indigenous social contactee???

Evildrneil,
We can argue about the sociological issues pertaining to notions of nationhood, how nations are [groan] 'socially-constructed' etc until the cows come home, to coin an old English cliche. That will not alter the basic fact that most people who are born in Britain and descend from ancestors belonging to the majority 'white' stock see Britain as 'their' country. In human affairs, what people believe to be the case is often of greater importance than what actually is the case. It is not just the British, the story is the same throughout the world. Which is why mass immigration is seen as largely a threat to existing cultures. 'We the People' can become 'We Another People'.

Originally posted by timo
Evildrneil,
We can argue about the sociological issues pertaining to notions of nationhood, how nations are [groan] 'socially-constructed' etc until the cows come home, to coin an old English cliche. That will not alter the basic fact that most people who are born in Britain and descend from ancestors belonging to the majority 'white' stock see Britain as 'their' country. In human affairs, what people believe to be the case is often of greater importance than what actually is the case. It is not just the British, the story is the same throughout the world. Which is why mass immigration is seen as largely a threat to existing cultures. 'We the People' can become 'We Another People'.

In which case surely "we the people" should be considerably more worried about the influx of American films/TV/culture which is arguably having a much greater impact on our society than imigration???

[MOD NOTE] Split off from "Grooming of young girls by gangs of men" in the interests of thread sanity!

Originally posted by evildrneil
In which case surely "we the people" should be considerably more worried about the influx of American films/TV/culture which is arguably having a much greater impact on our society than imigration???

the nature of that change is that it actually alters 'we the people' rather than suplanting them. So firstly the majority may not even realise or be capable of understanding the change and secondly, they may not object even if they do.
I think the issue is more to do with people than with whatever the norm is, if that makes sense.
Ie - Englishness may change, but as long as it's changed for everyone who subscribes to that norm, then no one objects.
When it is forcibly changed by the addition of a large number of people with a different culture, then the original indignents object.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the nature of that change is that it actually alters 'we the people' rather than suplanting them. So firstly the majority may not even realise or be capable of understanding the change and secondly, they may not object even if they do.
I think the issue is more to do with people than with whatever the norm is, if that makes sense.
Ie - Englishness may change, but as long as it's changed for everyone who subscribes to that norm, then no one objects.
When it is forcibly changed by the addition of a large number of people with a different culture, then the original indignents object.

But according to the last census 92.1% of the population are white with the largest "other" group making up 4% of the population thats hardly going to lead to the forcable supplanting of the (rather fuzzy) native English national identity unless a majority of the white population are happy with the change - in which case whouldn't we simply go with a majority decision?

I suppose it's the perceived change that is the problem, and this perception is manipulated to a large extent by the media.

Poverty begets higher crime rates. Many young black males are brought up in economically deprived areas. It's not rocket science.

I have yet to see actual evidence to show that black people commit more crime (per capita) rather than them getting policed much more.

For instance I grew up in Seacroft in Leeds. One of the biggest council house estate in Europe. Lots of crime there, almost exclusively white. I never got pulled over in all my years of living there. I went to a school where white people were in the minority. So I had many Asian and Black friends.

If I was a black friend and he was driving I knew we had a much higher chance of getting pulled over. Some of my friends would be pulled over 2 or 3 times a month.. and here I was living in a crime ridden area, and in 10 years of driving I had not been pulled over once.

When I was at college, it pretty well know that colleges are full of people experimenting with all sorts of substances. But police ignore it for the most part.

White collar crime is estimated to cost almost as much as street crime. But a fraction of the resources are used to tackle it.

It was not so long ago that some people very high up, who are actually in the police force, said it was riddled with "institutional racism". So if there is so much racism in the police force, shouldn't we expect them to target black communities more than white?

So there are some examples, can anybody offer up some examples to prove to me that blacks are not policed FAR heavier than whites? And if they are policed far heavier, for what ever reasons, could anybody tell me why that wouldn't skew the figures. What the evidence seems to show is there are a disproportunate amount of Black people in prison than white people, even considering the amount of crime they commit.

My father used to work CID, he says over the coming years we will be hearing much about health care workers who have been murdering people for years, covertly, all white.. a white crime that has been left undiscovered for years. Anybody name a black serial killer? (i can think of one) Peadophile? (sure there are many, but it's mainly a white crime, and i cannot think of a single black peadophile for some reason). Some crimes are mainly black, some white. I personally would like to see more white collar crime and fraud prosecuted, it's not as bad as murder or violent crime but it needs to be dealt with, not overlooked due to lack of resources.

Anyway if anybody does have any form of evidence i would be interested to hear it. I have looked and there doesn't apear to be anything that shows white people are policed as heavily as Black people. And if that the case, then nobody can say that "they get poiliced heavier because they commit more crime", as thats a chicken and egg situation. If you don't have evidence it's just a hunch or opinion based on hear say.

black people commit more crime pro rata than white people.

however, black people are more likely to be classed as poor.

Black poor commit as much crime as white or asian poor.

Originally posted by robbie
black people commit more crime pro rata than white people.
.

How do you know this?

How do you know it's not higher detection rates?

It's impossible to know because no studies have been done to my knowlege.

This is what i was trying to say. Why do you think that pro rate, black people commite more crime? Society has planted that in your head and most people just take it for granted. Problems is it's based on nadda. The government do no studies, no goverment has ever done studies.

We do know that some people are more likely to be the target of police.

We do not know which races actually perform the most crime. We just know how many we arrest, or put away. Not at all the same thing.

It could be true. I am not saying it isn't. But you, me, the goverment and nobody in this thread can honestly say they know.