Race in descriptions of criminals

Posted by Metzger on January 11, 2006, 12:08 AM | #

I greatly enjoy the articles that say: “The suspect, who is still at large, is a male, about 5’10” and 180 lbs.” With no race listed at all.  It’s the first thing that should be listed in any description of a crime suspect and yet these journalists and newspaper editors seem to feel that it’s too trivial to mention. 

Articles about criminals who have been captured generally don’t list the race either.  If there’s no accompanying picture, I peruse the article for the name of the suspect: oftentimes one can make a well-informed guess as to the race of the perp from his first name.

Whites tend not to be named DeShawn, Demtrius, or Jamal, for example.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 12, 2006, 01:57 PM | #

I am still waiting for the Establishment to reveal the ethnicities of the rapists and murderers of Mary Ann Leneghan.  Mary Ann and her friend were abducted by six men from a pub car park in Reading.  They were taken to a cheap local hotel and subjected to a three hour ordeal of rape and torture.  Then they were removed to a local park where Mary Ann was butchered by knifing and her friend, who survived, was shot in the head.

Since the story broke there has been immense and, frankly, tell-tale coyness about the negroid dimension.  With surpassing correctness the police spokesman managed to inform us at the beginning, “the men police are looking for may be of mixed race, white, or Afro-Caribbean”.  He knew, though, from witnesses that there were six of them in a burgundy saloon car.  So apparently it is possible to count six men in a car but not notice whether they were negroes.

Beyond that, all the watching public have had to go on is the fact that this was a pack of animals on the loose with guns whom the police identified rapidly and traced to their homes in South London.  Their names are not much help.  There is one Jamaile and one Indrit, so the group looks to be five negroes/half-castes and one Indian/half-caste.

When the guilty votes roll in their pictures will probably be printed - if the case doesn’t go the shameful way of Kriss Donald’s.  The signs aren’t wholly encouraging.  The BBC News website has not yet deigned to post a report on the opening day of the trial.  Any chance of that, you think, if the two victims were black girls and the six accused white?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 13, 2006, 05:53 PM | #

To add to that comment, today BBC News reports that the motive for Mary Ann’s slaughter was revenge for a robbery of one of the accused by a friend or friends of Mary Ann.

The events of the night have been fully revealed in court:-

“For the next few hours they were seriously assaulted, they were raped, they were made to smoke heroin and crack cocaine and most seriously of all they were told throughout that they were going to die that night when the men had finished with them.”

He told the court the girls were then taken to Prospect Park where a pillow was placed over Mary-Ann’s head before she was repeatedly stabbed to death.

‘Miraculous survival’

He said a pillow was also placed over her friend’s head.

“A loaded gun was placed against her forehead and it was discharged. She was instantly unconscious and she was left for dead,” Mr Latham said.

“Miraculously the bullet did not kill her. It was she who raised the alarm asking for the assistance of a passer-by.”

But, needless to say, the ethnicity of the six is still not reported.

Then, to confound those who despair of the dishonesty of the liberal mind, on another part of the BBC’s website is this sudden openness:-

A City lawyer was stabbed to death just yards from his home by two men who had already robbed him.

Police said Tom ap Rhys-Price, 31, was first mugged in Bathurst Gardens, Willesden, north-west London, on Thursday night.

The robbers then attacked him again and stabbed his body, hands and head.

Officers think the men, who are black and in their late teens or early 20s, may have been hurt as Mr ap Rhys-Price had “clearly tried to defend himself”.

Perhaps it’s the proverbial exception.

Posted by Amalek on January 13, 2006, 09:09 PM | #

The BBC could not bring itself to state on its television news (either local or national) that the suspects in the lawyer’s stabbing are black.

And in the Reading gang rape and murder trial, the BBC called the accused ‘six men’ and claimed they could not be named ‘for legal reasons’. whereas ITV also conferred anonymity but showed an artist’s sketch of the courtroom with six bull-necked, shaven-headed negroids seen from behind.

The sorrowful tone in which these outrages are reported, together with the lack of specificity about the perps, makes them seem like natural disasters. But I expect that by now 90% of the audience assumes what usually turns out to be the truth from the resonating silence of the gatekeepers.

A manufactured moral panic about a handful of teachers with long-ago convictions (or mere suspicions) for sex offences against children is the current distraction gambit. Not that there is a shred of evidence that these teachers abused their positions in trying to earn a living. All evil white men, of course—how many blacks could play the system as shrewdly?

Posted by Delos on January 14, 2006, 07:15 PM | #

You might find this link interesting about hiding racial details when the perpetrator is non-White:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3512789a1861,00.html

National’s focus on political correctness is so wet that I resent it fiercely when it seems to actually have a point – as it may have had in a minor way this week.

It was over National Radio coverage of the Aussie nastiness at Sydney’s Cronulla beach. The motive for the violence was elusive when I listened to the reports early on Monday morning, because something was missing.

It was missing, I found myself assuming, because it would have offended against somebody’s idea of political correctness. The other option is that it was just slackness – but without that detail, the report made only partial sense.

The mob at Cronulla attacked people of Middle Eastern extraction, I had to discover elsewhere, because people of that origin had earlier attacked two lifeguards. There. It’s been said again, and the sky hasn’t fallen in.

It may have been a poor sort of an excuse for an outburst of thuggery, but at least it means there was a catalyst for the crowd’s anger that day; it didn’t materialise out of nothing.

Because the reports didn’t mention the ethnicity of the lifeguards’ attackers, I had the impression that this had been a spontaneous outburst of ugly Australianism, which it was not. Text messages had been circulating urging louts to take action against what they call “Middle Eastern” gangs following the lifeguard incident.

So it was calculated ugly Australianism – to be followed, in due course, by ugly Middle Easternism, in equally thuggish retaliation.

Why leave out ethnicity details? News is supposed to deliver the why of things happening, as well as the who and what. You can only guess that identifying people this way is a problem – these omissions are becoming common – even when it’s of direct relevance, because we can’t be trusted not to react in a prejudiced kind of a way.

We might, for example, wonder what caused the Middle Eastern people to attack the lifeguards in the first place, and if there was a serious problem in the Cronulla community and nearby suburbs where the violence spilled over.

This is the bit about political correctness that really brasses me off: the assumption that people are inherently so nasty or so stupid that they can’t be trusted to get the full facts straight for themselves. They have to have the total truth shielded from them in case they get the wrong impression – even if it could be the right impression; even if it’s unpalatable.

It bugs me when I suspect that news is affected by such dreary, mind-numbing twiddling. News isn’t supposed to be about making a better world: it’s supposed to be about helping to make a more informed one, at best. We don’t have a responsibility to second-guess how people will react to information, or to attempt to manipulate the reaction we think is right. News just happens.

Lying underneath the story of vile crowd behaviour in Sydney are real issues that face people all over the world, wherever immigration is having an impact on settled communities. “We grew here, you flew here,” the ugly T-shirt slogan associated with the first Cronulla brawl crudely sums it up.

Cronulla is challenging – brutally – idealistic assumptions about how we can behave in a civilised manner with each other, despite different beliefs and cultural practices. We used to assume that the more contact different cultures had with each other the better they’d get on, uniting eventually in one vast and slightly dusky family.

The outcome would be a merged truth, I guess we fondly imagined, of the best of what every culture had going for it, one massive Benetton advertising campaign. Such never seems to be the case.

This seems a suitably irritating time to mention that Christmas, the season of goodwill, actually kicked off in the Middle East. Jesus could well have been a “Leb” – the Cronulla term of the week – and the mob there would definitely call him a “wog”. Yet I gather he had his good points, and that in spite of his ethnicity, he eventually proved himself surprisingly useful.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 14, 2006, 09:10 PM | #

“This seems a suitably irritating time to mention that Christmas, the season of goodwill, actually kicked off in the Middle East. Jesus could well have been a ‘Leb’ – the Cronulla term of the week – and the mob there would definitely call him a ‘wog.’ Yet I gather he had his good points, and that in spite of his ethnicity, he eventually proved himself surprisingly useful.”  (—Delos)

Delos, in your thoughtful comment you rightly talk about the mainstream news media’s refusal to address details central to what went on.  Is it possible you’re doing the same thing? 

Is there such a thing as racially/ethnoculturally incompatible immigration that’s excessive?  Or are all volumes of racially/ethnoculturally incompatible immigration appropriate?  In the little sermon-like ending of your comment, which I quote above, you sidestep that question completely—just as the mainstream media sidestepped certain questions about Cronulla. 

Take Denmark.  If three Moroccans immigrate to Denmark, only three, so that there are only three people in the whole of Denmark who aren’t Danes—namely, our three Moroccans who’ve just immigrated—we would think “Shame on you!” in regard to any Danish teenagers who ill-treated these newcomers.  We’d be shocked, embarrassed, humiliated.  We’d say, “What delinquents!  Where are their parents?  How were they raised, to treat people like this on account of race or religion?  It’s unbelievable!  What were they taught in school?”  And we’d do everything we could to show the Moroccans that not all Danes were like that—we’d try to make up for what had been done to them, by going out of our way to be nice.

OK—now say not three Moroccans immigrated to Denmark but three million and they began actually race-replacing the Danish nation.  There are only three million Danes in Denmark in the first place, remember.  Let’s say simultaneously with the arrival of the three million Moroccans the government starts giving them all sorts of advantages over the Danes, all sorts of money and social benefits paid for by Danish taxpayers, young Danish couples can’t have all the babies they want because all their disposable income is taken away to give to the Moroccans so they can have all the babies they want, and as a result the white birth rate starts falling while the subsidized Moroccan one climbs, and the demographers predict an even greater need for Moroccans in the near future “because for some reason the Danes aren’t having enough babies.”  And so on, and so forth—we all here know the score, know exactly what goes on with this crap. 

Now, say all Danes who try to question the situation are sacked from their jobs, refused their pensions, thrown in jail or threatened therewith, for the crime of “hate speech,” and any political party that calls the situation into question runs the risk of being outlawed, also for “hate speech” or its PC equivalent.  In other words, let’s say the government absolutely refuses to listen to voices calling for fewer Moroccans in Denmark, and just keeps bringing more and more of them in.

In that case, if Danish teenagers got violent and a Cronulla situation erupted we wouldn’t be so quick to condemn them or solemnly sermonize to them about Jesus the way you did, Delos, in the quote I took from your comment.  That would be completely evading the main point, just as the newsmedia do—the main point being there are too many of them here. 

All right, there aren’t three million Moroccans in Denmark, there aren’t twenty million Lebanese in Oz, there aren’t sixty million Pakistanis or Nigerians or whatever in England, there aren’t eighty million Turks in Germany, there aren’t twenty-five million Chinamen in Canada, and there aren’t two hundred and ninety million Mexicans in the United States.  But we know that if there were, there’d legitimately be a problem.  Right?  Or is that not right?

So, it becomes a question of where to draw the line.  We know that if three Moroccans immigrated to Denmark—just three—there’d be no problem (all the white people would take their side if they got beaten up by white thugs, and so on) and if three million Moroccans immigrated to Denmark, there’d be a problem; if eight Turks immigrated to Germany—just eight—there’d be no problem, and if eighty million did, there’d be a problem; if five Algerians immmigrated to France—just five—there’d be no problem, and if fifty million did, there’d be a problem; and so on. 

Where exactly, between three and three million, between eight and eighty million, ought we agree to draw the line?  That’s obviously the question, since we agree there’s no problem at one extreme and there’s a problem at the other.  At what point between the two extremes does “no problem” change into “problem”?

We know that Tony Blair and David Blunkett don’t want there to be any line or any limit on incompatible immigration—the sky’s the limit—and at this blog we know that at least one voice here prefers the limit be virtually zero, the same as Queen Elizabeth I who at one point gave orders to round up all the “negars” in the realm and boot them out. 

But that’s the question:  where’s the limit?

Not only is it the question, but it’s plain as day that it’s the question.  So why, Delos, do you ignore it?  You ignore it because you’re being the same as the MSM:  you’re ignoring the crucial question.

Stop your sermonizing.  It doesn’t apply here.

Posted by Lurker on January 14, 2006, 11:42 PM | #

Fred, you’ve really hit the nail right on the head there. Almost no-one would mind the odd immigrant here & there. Coupled with a strong dominant, confident culture that wouldnt be a problem.

When your average lib/leftie is thinking warmly about diversity he is thinking about the very white, fairly well off area they live in, there is the odd black face here and a few asians there etc. In fact this is just the kind of area I live in. People think diversity means the black bloke who they drink with in their pub - not eg Bradford where truculent asian muslims are set to be the majority group.

Round here whites are the clear majority and there are (or were) too few of anybody else to add up to a “minority” in the political sense. In a generation or two, without further immigration, there would be little trace of them. We could cope with that sort of diversity, a few incomers every generation is tolerable, in fact thats gone on for a long time. Trouble is the politeness and tolerance that makes that possible has been totally subverted.

I think deep down a lot of western liberals would probably think the same. Sure hard-core lefties think class is everything & libertarians profess that it matters not the slightest whether the entire population of eg Canada is replaced with Chinese as long as they are polite & hard working. Everyone else is assuming that at some point someone in charge will call a halt.

Im sure we’ve seen people on this site and elsewhere who will agree that perhaps there can be too many muslims in a country but seem to think that situation can be reversed without immigration control or in fact any measure thats not PC.

It cant.

I sometimes suspect they are following a quasi-religious fatalism, they know that current policies will destroy the European peoples, history and culture but they will go to their grave happy that at least they lived a saintly PC life. The baleful influence of Gandhi at work there I think.

Posted by Lurker on January 14, 2006, 11:50 PM | #

Delos - I notice you tried to conflate muslim & Christian Lebanese into “lebs”, isnt that part of the MSM/elite smokescreen? Ignorant surfies attacking anyone who looks middle-eastern ie simple racists we can sneer at.

As far as I can gather the Australians involved at Cronulla are pretty well able to distinguish between the two and they know who the enemy is.

Posted by Getafix on January 14, 2006, 11:59 PM | #

Gentlemen, Delos was merely reproducing an article from a New Zealand paper. Those were not his comments, merely those of Rosemary McLeod of Stuff.co.nz.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2006, 12:57 AM | #

Ooops!  Thanks, Getafix.  (Sorry, Delos—I hadn’t clicked on the link you gave.) 

“Everyone else is assuming that at some point someone in charge will call a halt.”  (—Lurker)

That’s exactly right:  everyone else is assuming exactly that.  They don’t realize it’s wrong:  no one’s going to call a halt unless the ordinary people and what relatively few sane, honest élites there are “get involved,” as the expression goes, and raise a stink.  Cronulla was a symptom of grave societal pathology, the pathology of a government refusing to implement reasonable controls on incompatible immigration.

“I’m sure we’ve seen people on this site and elsewhere who will agree that perhaps there can be too many muslims in a country but seem to think that situation can be reversed without immigration control or in fact any measure that’s not PC.  It can’t.”

Lurker is right again.  Immigration sanity is going to have to be discussed very explicitly, and reasonable, humane steps taken to bring the present galloping race-replacement situation to a halt and then to reverse it. 

Furthermore—and this is the painful part, painful but necessary—somewhere in the immigration rules is going to have to be explicit mention of race:  acknowledgement that races exist and that members of traditional communities and nations have a fundamental human right to expect the broad preservation through reasonable, humane immigration policies of their communities’ and nations’ traditional racial identities.  If race is not made explicit there will be nothing standing between what remains of the various white populations and their complete race-replacement by every non-white people on the planet.

Posted by ben tillman on January 15, 2006, 03:18 AM | #

This is the bit about political correctness that really brasses me off: the assumption that people are inherently so nasty or so stupid that they can’t be trusted to get the full facts straight for themselves. They have to have the total truth shielded from them in case they get the wrong impression….

This guy is a long, long way from catching on.

The assumption is that people are smart enough to draw the correct conclusions from factual reporting, which is why the truth must be continually and consistently concealed.

Posted by ben tillman on January 15, 2006, 03:58 AM | #

This guy is a long, long way from catching on.

Excuse me - this “woman”....

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 15, 2006, 10:54 AM | #

“This woman is a long, long way from catching on.  The assumption is that people are smart enough to draw the correct conclusions from factual reporting, which is why the truth must be continually and consistently concealed.”  (—Ben Tillman)

Exactly!  Excellent point, Ben Tillman.  Excellent point.