« Tory contender speaks | Main | Gramscian policies »

Race killings

UK Commentators - Laban Tall's Blog

Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Updated Google News Counts
Richard Whelan - 37 stories.

Anthony Walker - 518 stories.

Scores on the doors this morning are still 37 and 668...

Comments

If you think that's bad, compare the Walker killing with the instance of a David Henkel. Henkel was apparently killed in a racially motivated attack by Albanians.

http://www.gunculture.net/index.php/weblog/whats_the_difference/

There is NO difference between these two victims, but the media seem to know more than me, they know what is the difference...

Like the BNP, you like to compare murders of white and black people and point to the fact that some murders (for instance racially motivated ones) get more coverage than others to support your hypothesis that we've all gone bonkers PC and are far nicer to black people than they deserve. The two murders that you describe are equally heinous but not comparable; one there was clear evidence for a racially motivated attack and it was also a group attack. The second was the act of a lone individual with no racial motivation as yet proven. Racially motivated crime is on the up so it's going to be more of a concern to the public than a more random murder, being something that all of us can do something about. The media have reflected this. Remember that most violent deaths go unreported in the national press. It mystifies me how you can begrudge the opportunity to address racially motivated crime in the UK. Black people are far more likely to be targets of racially motivated crime, and so this problem should be given due consideration. The failing of the media to give racially motivated crime where the victims are white equal space in all likelihood reflects its infrequency rather than racism.

Oh! And also, a footballer's brother may be involved in Anthony Walker's death. No worthy reason for the story getting more coverage, but I think to be so convinced that the fact that Richard Wheelan's murder is getting less coverage is because people care less about the murder of white people than black people would only be to engender and maintain the sort of attitudes which lead to racially motivated crime in the first place, and likely, for all the reasons I have outlined, to be substantially untrue.

"Black people are far more likely to be targets of racially motivated crime, and so this problem should be given due consideration.."

At the moment, 'black' people are far more likely (in some areas) to be instigators of certain types of crime - hence the setting up of Trident & the (sadly now possibly aborted by the ever dim Hazel Mears) racial profiling of suicide bomb suspects.

So, what 'due consideration' needs to be given to these problems, by your reckoning..?

Clare

Try Googling "Kriss Donald" in the way Laban Tall did in the linked article. Also a group attack, more horrific as it involved prolonged torture before the murder was committed, and also race related.

In fact, I'll save you the trouble. 10 articles on Google news.

Laban Tall article at http://www.ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2004_11_07_ukcommentators_archive.html#110021326787113550

Don’t talk a load of Bollocks Clare

White victims from black murderers have had a media bias against them for years. Any murder is tragic for all victims and their families, but in PC Britain it does not warrant the same attention from our media and so-called leaders! The liberal establishment also gives uneven reporting in the USA.
http://www.wichita-massacre.com/
http://www.ukcommentators.blogspot.com/


The statistics speak volumes for themselves!
Racist Murder and White Liberal Guilt
On Friday 18 year old Anthony Walker was murdered in Liverpool, in an disgusting and unprovoked racist attack like the ones that killed 15 year old Kriss Donald and 17 year old Ross Parker.

The murder of Anthony Walker was the main or second item on BBC Radio Four News all Saturday. It was the second item on BBC Television news last night, after the terrorist arrests. High profile coverage continued this morning.

The murders of Kriss Donald and Ross Parker didn't ever make BBC Radio or television news. I'm an avid Radio Four listener and I've never heard Ross Parker's name. The Today programme had one report on the trial of Kriss Donald's murderers and the trial was also mentioned on the PM programme.

The Kriss Donald killing was notable for the horrific and premeditated nature of the attack, the Ross Parker murder because it occurred 10 days after September 11th, when the BBC, Guardian and Independent had all antennae alert for a 'backlash' by Native Brits against innocent Muslims. A racist murder of a Native Brit by Muslims ? Sorry - I can't hear you. On the day Ross Parker was killed this is what the BBC were reporting.

It could perhaps be argued that the remarkable disproportion between the coverage of racist murders where the victim is white (minimal coverage) and non-white (major coverage extending in some cases over years) reflects the severity of the problem. Perhaps black and Asian people are being murdered much more often than white.

The Home Office figures (table 3.6) don't seem to bear this out. Over three years 2001-2004 there were 38 homicides of blacks, 28 of Asians, and 22 of 'other' where the principal suspect was white. For blacks the figures were 87 homicides of whites, 12 of Asians, 11 'other', for Asians 37 homicides of whites, 7 of blacks and 6 of 'other', for 'other' 29 homicides of whites, 4 balck, one Asian.

This kind of data is notoriously difficult to analyse, because of the geographical distribution of ethnic groups. For example, if 95% of the white population lived in areas where they never saw a black or Asian person, it would be unfair to conclude that zero racist murder in those areas equalled zero propensity to racist murder.

But what they can show is conclusively is that in all murders which could POTENTIALLY be racist, white people are over-represented in the victim class and correspondingly under-represented in the 'principal suspect' class. You would never know that if you listened to the BBC.

UPDATE - Who else but the Pub Philosopher also comments. And I'd just like to say that I've no objection to the amount of air that the Anthony Walker case is getting. I'd just like to see all all murders getting that kind of coverage - even if the victim's white. Long ago, when murders were half or a third of todays levels, the BBC reported them all on national news. It would be interesting to know when and by whom the decision was taken to stop this.

# posted by Laban : 5:01 PM
Saturday, July 30, 2005

The problem of crime within minority communities should of course be given due consideration, such that the problems can be dealt with most effectively and sensitively. I think this has not escaped the notice of the police and the government. As Laban Tall says in yesterday's post, all murderers should be given the same treatment. But isn't that what happens? Are there statistics to show otherwise? Rather than the straw poll method of looking at media interest as gauged by internet googling...I would be surprised if it could be shown that black people got off more lightly than white people for comparable crimes. (Ps when he talks disparagingly of 'root causes', for the record, why is it a bad thing to look at why people commit crimes? It's not the same thing as making excuses for the criminals! Surely it's a valuable source of information.)
It's just that when I read people complaining that unfair consideration is given to black people, unfortunately the view that it is they who should be getting less attention as opposed to everyone being worthy of the same attention that is not far behind. It's only a short hop between 'people are too scared of offending black people' (e.g. and so not giving due consideration to black on white crime, which is the substance, correct me if I'm wrong, of your posts) to 'I resent black people' to 'I think they should all be deported', BNP style.
Maybe the consensus in your posts that actually it's just that due consideration needs to be given to black on white crime means is such that you don't feel the need to spell out the fact that you're not BNP jackbooted fascists. But it's worth remembering, I think, that not everyone is amenable to considering the subtleties involved when looking at the connections between race and crime. So I'd make it a little clearer about what you're trying to say by posting those statistics, because you might be leading people to make conclusions about you that are inaccurate, or conclusions which might encourage intolerance of black people (who *obviously* are unfairly reaping the advantages of this PC-mad society).

So let's say that the media coverage of black on white crime is disproportionately small, or that of black on white crime is disproportionately large. Why do you think this is? And what can or should be done about it? And what consequences would this have for rates of race crimes and race relations? (I'm just interested!).

It's only a short hop between 'people are too scared of offending black people' (e.g. and so not giving due consideration to black on white crime, which is the substance, correct me if I'm wrong, of your posts) to 'I resent black people' to 'I think they should all be deported', BNP style.

You really think that's a short hop do you? You go from an argument for equal treatment regardless of skin colour (classical liberalism) to a claim that this will be mistaken for fascism.

I think you are bonkers.

Ok, this is why I feel these otherwise opposing arguments are related. I am generally suspicious of people's motives when they are so desire to highlight how the murder of a white person hasn't been given the same media attention as the murder of a black person. The implication is that black on white crime is hushed up to avoid offending minority communities. It is arguable, in my opinion, whether this is true or not. I don't really think that the data on race crime is out there that can tell us conclusively whether this feature of media reporting is unrelated or disproportionate to the likelihood you are to suffer a race related crime as a black or a white person. Now the reason why I feel uneasy when I see people being so aggrieved at the figures in question is because there are two commonly held beliefs behind the offence taken, given that you believe hushing up or self-censorship has occurred; one is the more reasonable, but a bit oversensitive, race equality rationale. The other is the belief that black people are being given undue, over-consideration, and are impinging unfairly upon and so are detrimental to our society. This is a widespread view within the far right. They frequently highlight under-reported black on white crime, citing PCness-gone-mad as it's cause, to foment racial unrest. The reason why there is a short hop between these arguments is because the former is often cited by such proponents when the racism of the latter is challenged. It's often used as a cover. That is why I'm concerned, I suppose I just wanted to reassure myself that your post's close attention to such matters was entirely noble and generous in spirit, that's all. I have now made explicit the link that can be made between the two arguments - they're dichotomous explanations for concern about black on white crime, and one is often use to mask the other underlying motive. I hope you think this is less 'bonkers'! Regards, C.

Clare

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree. I should not have to state my bona fides before offering an opinion. Should we not accept someone's good faith until they prove otherwise. By your line of reasoning we might expect Moslems to start every political conversation with a statement of their abhorrence of terrorism.

Besides, you can usually check out someone's background by looking at their blog.

OK, but in the original post not even an opinion was offered; so it was unclear what the person was intending to say by drawing our attention to the numbers. And although you can sometimes get what a person was trying to get at by the rest of their blog, it would also be more elucidating for the readers if the author is more forthcoming; after all, isn't that the purpose of the post? I generally like to accept someone's good faith until proven otherwise but it's hard when such information is so commonly used for ignoble ends. I just wondered what was behind it. The reactions that I have got so far suggest a leaning to the racial equality ethos, but I wonder if this is shared by all your readers. Not, of course, that one has a responsibility for erroneous conclusions drawn by someone else, but I'm sure it would irk the author to think that this might have happened.

I posted it because I thought it was interesting and wondered what others made of it - so all views have been interesting.

Post a comment