The politically inspired fog covering the race and ethnicity of those involved in the August riots is beginning to clear. The Ministry of Justice have produced a further analysis of people arrested and brought before the courts for offences committed in the rioting in England between 6th and 9th August (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf). The data is complete to 12th October.
The Home Office has also produce a report dated simply October
There are differences in the mode of collection of data between the two reports, but the message is broadly the same.
The large majority of those brought before the courts committed their alleged crimes in
London. 1,984 people had appeared before the courts by midday on 12th October 2011. By riot area the figures are:
• London – 1,386
• West Midlands – 174
• Nottingham – 64
• Greater Manchester – 200
• Merseyside – 62
• Other areas – 98
(http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf – p4). The overwhelming majority of those brought before the courts were from areas with large non-white populations.
The reports include an ethnic/racial breakdown of those arrested and those brought before the courts. These demonstrate clearly that blacks were grossly overrepresented, Asians proportionately represented and whites grossly underrepresented in proportion to their part of the population of England. Here is the Ministry of Justice:
Comparisons by ethnicity (where ethnicity was recorded) show that 42 per cent of those brought before the courts were White, 46 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background, 7 per cent were from an Asian or mixed Asian background, 5 per cent were other. The proportions vary significantly by area. However, caution is needed when analysing these figures as the comparisons with the local population have not been fully age adjusted (p4).
This broadly agrees with the ethnic breakdown of those arrested given in the Home Office report :
Forty per cent of all arrestees described their ethnicity as White, 39 per cent as Black, 11 per cent as from a Mixed ethnic background, eight per cent as Asian and two per cent
from some other ethnic background. (p4).
There are two ways of looking at the figures: by comparison with the population of England as a whole and by comparison with the populations of the areas in which the riots took place.
The Office of National Statistics estimates of the ethnicity of the population of England in 2009 are :
% White 87.9
% Mixed 1.30
% Asian or Asian British 5.9
% Black or Black British 2.90
% Chinese 0.4
% Other 1.6
Go to http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html and put into search Population Estimates by Ethnic Group 2002-2009 (this should bring up PDF file peegstatisticalbulleti_tcm77-20265(1).pdf)
Blacks with 2.90 of the population comprise 46% of those brought before the courts , while whites (which includes white immigrants) with 87.9% of the population provide only 42% of this group. Asian representation approximately reflects their percentage of the UK population.
The comparison with the populations of the riot areas showed an even greater black involvement. This was true even in the few areas where there was only a small non-white population, for example;
Salford – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Salford, 94 per cent were White and six per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 88 per cent white and two per cent black or mixed Black backgrounds.
In areas where the non-white population was substantial, the proportion of those brought before the courts who were classified as wholly or partially black was stark. For example;
Haringey – of defendants brought before the court who live in Haringey, 34 per cent were White and 55 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 62 per cent were White and 17 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background.
Nottingham – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Nottingham, 32 per cent were White and 62 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 71 per cent were White and nine per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background.
Birmingham – of defendants brought before the courts, 46 per cent were from a Black background, 33 per cent from a White background and 15 per cent from and Asian background.Whereas the resident population, aged under 40, comprised 58 per cent , 30 per cent from Asian and nine per cent from Black backgrounds. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
The figures do not necessarily represent the actual ethnic/racial participation in the riots. The sample depends on those arrested and brought before the courts self-identifying their racial group. 5 per cent did not identify their race. Which group would be less likely
to refuse to identify their race? I think it unlikely that whites would do so because in Britain being white does not carry any stigma or sense of being outside the mainstream. Most of that 5% could probably be assigned to non-whites.
There is also the willingness and ability of the police to arrest and investigate members of all racial and ethnic groups with equal vigour and success and the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute without any regard to ethnicity or race.
There can be no certainty about the even handedness of the police and CPS because the public does not have access to the police data including the vast amount of CCTV evidence.
Nonetheless, it is possible to say what is probable. As everyone who watched the TV coverage or viewed the many postings on sites like YouTube of TV coverage or private recordings, it is clear that where gangs of rioters were breaking into shops and other
buildings the rioters were overwhelmingly black. Despite assiduous efforts to find a white gang making the initial breach into a property I have found none. Nor have I been able to find a white gang rioting or looting in any circumstances. Whites actually looting either appear in ones or twos or occasionally as part of a predominantly black gang.
If that interpretation of how the riots evolved is correct – black initiation and domination of the rioting and looting followed by opportunistic white involvement – it is probable that the police have disproportionately arrested whites compared with blacks. This would be because whites, not being in gangs, would be easier and safer to arrest than blacks, both during the riots and afterwards. The police would also be chary of tackling non-whites and especially black gangs both during the riots and later because of the politically correct ideology which has taught the police that dealing with blacks is dangerous because of accusations of racism. There is some indication of that this may have happened because the Home Office report on the riots http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p5 ) downplays the role of gangs:
Overall 13 per cent of arrestees (417) were reported to be affiliated to a gang. Outside London, the majority of forces identified fewer than ten per cent of all arrestees as gang
members, and only two non-London forces estimated figures in excess of this – West Yorkshire (19%) and Nottinghamshire (17%). For these two forces, these percentages only represent relatively small numbers of arrestees (13 and 20 respectively; see Table A15 in Annex). In London, police reported that 19 per cent of arrestees – 337suspects, drawn from 169 different gangs – were identified as gang members. This is far more numerous than those arrested in all other forces combined. However, even in London, the great majority of arrestees (81%) were not identified by the police as being members of gangs. It should be noted that the way in which gang members were identified was not completely consistent between forces as no standard definition of gang membership was used. (p 18).
The relatively small percentage of those identified as gang members could be the consequence of a failure to arrest or investigate a large proportion of the black rioters and looters. It should also be understood that gangs are generally a black and Asian phenomenon. The 13 per cent is probably drawn overwhelmingly from the the non-white rioters.
The white component of those brought before the courts is problematic because although it is low compared with the group’s dominance of the English population, there is no clear differentiation between foreigners and native white Britons nor a figure for the total numbers of foreigners brought before the courts. (I made and an analysis of arrested rioters names in August – https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/the-racial-and-ethnic-make-up-of-the-august-2011-uk-rioters-by-group/– which shows some rioters with European names. It is a fair bet that most of these were white).
The number of foreigners sent to prison either after sentence or on remand was 110 at 30th September (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf – p18). This constituted 13 per cent of those sent to or remanded in prison. It is a reasonable assumption that a significant proportion of these people were white and further that those brought before the courts but not jailed will also contain a proportion of white foreigners. If, as the video evidence suggests, the white foreigners like whites generally tended to be opportunistic looters rather than engaging in violence against people or property, they would be less likely to be sentenced to prison or remanded in custody than blacks who clearly were
responsible for most of the serious assaults on initial property (the breaking into shops and other premises). That could mean that their appearance in the overall totals of those arrested and those brought before the courts but not held in custody could be higher than
those sent to prison.
There were 44 different foreign nationalities amongst those in prison either on remand or sentenced on September 9:
By September 9, after hundreds of rioters had been arrested, figures show there were 153 foreign nationals and prisoners of ‘unrecorded nationality’ – which in most cases refers to those from the European Union – in UK jails, representing 18 per cent of the 865 criminals imprisoned over the riots. That compares with 712 offenders from Britain.
Rioters from Jamaica represented the largest group of foreign inmates, followed by Somali and Polish offenders. The list also included those from Colombia, Iraq, Congo, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.
The course of the riots also supports the view that blacks instigated and dominated the rioting and looting and other racial groups took advantage of their seeming freedom from police action after the police stood off in the first days. Here is the Home Office description of what happened during the five days:
Day 1 Saturday, 6 August – Incidents of unrest in Tottenham with vehicles, shops and residential buildings set alight, and looting of shops.
Day 2 Sunday, 7 August – Further incidents of disorder occur in others areas of London affecting principally Enfield, Wood Green, Brixton, Walthamstow and Islington.
Day 3 Monday, 8 August – Disorder becomes widespread in London, with disorder occurring across almost all London boroughs. Incidents of disorder also occur in Avon and Somerset (Bristol), West Midlands (Birmingham) and Merseyside (Liverpool).
Day 4 Tuesday, 9 August – Although disorder in the London area begins to dissipate, disorder becomes more widespread throughout parts of Thames Valley (Reading, Milton Keynes), West Yorkshire (Leeds), Leicestershire (Leicester) and Greater Manchester (Salford, Manchester). Unrest also continues in Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham.
Day 5 Wednesday, 10 August – Disorder continues into the early hours on Wednesday in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester and Merseyside. Widespread disorder has now largely died out, though isolated disorder continues throughout the evening into early hours of Thursday. Some low-level isolated unrest continues over the following days. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p7).
The flow of the disorder is clear: it started in areas of heavy black settlement and gradually spread to places with smaller proportions of blacks in the population. In those areas a much smaller amount of looting and criminal damage occurred.
The dominant element of criminal intent (as opposed to political protest) in the riots can be seen from the high proportion of those brought before the courts with a criminal
conviction or caution:
• Overall 76 per cent of those who have appeared before the courts for the disorder had a previous caution or conviction
• 80 per cent of adults and 62 per cent of juveniles had a previous caution or conviction.
•71 per cent of adult males who have been brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction compared to 28 per cent of males aged 18-52 in the
population as a whole who have at least one previous conviction
•45 per cent of males aged 10-17 brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction. This compares with two per cent of the 10-17 year old male population who have at least one previous conviction
These statistics should be viewed in the context that the police will have been much more likely to identify people with a criminal record or caution from CCTV and other images than those who are unknown to them. However, there were many arrests at the scene of crimes and the difference between the general population and those brought before the courts is so stark that is unlikely to be wildly inaccurate as a representation of the rioters in general, whether arrested or not.
There was a strong age bias towards the young.:
Comparisons by age show that 26 per cent of those brought before the courts for offences relating to the public disorder were aged 10-17 (juveniles) and that a further 27 per cent were aged 18-20. Only five per cent of those appearing before the courts for the disorder were over 40 years old. (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf – p3).
Because the age profile of blacks and Asians in Britain is significantly younger than that of whites, it is probable that a higher percentage of blacks and Asians are included in the younger offender groups than amongst the overall group of those brought before the courts.
The claims of social deprivation do not stand up. This is not because the rioters were not poor or at least came predominantly from areas of social deprivation. They did. Moreover, their educational attainments were below average – see p 20 http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf. The reason why the claims fall is because there are many other parts of the country equally poor with populations lacking educational success which did not riot. The difference is that these areas had small or non-existent black populations.
Calling black multi-coloured
What is clear is the determination of the British political elite to deny the reality of the riots. Instead of accepting that these events were black riots and lootfests which encouraged opportunistic looting by a small percentage of whites and a larger percentage of Asians, they have painted the riots as being racially undifferentiated and the product of variously “broken Britain”, “an underclass” , “social deprivation” and “feral children”. At best they are sweeping a problem under the carpet and at worst cynically tarring the native white population with a brush filled with a politically correct lie.
I submitted this prospective epetition (https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)
The Commons to debate why the true nature of the black-instigated and dominated 2011 riots has been denied by politicians of all parties who have insisted on the false equality of participation of all races and ethnicities in the riots, despite the fact that anyone watching the voluminous TV and private video coverage of the riots could see that blacks were involved out of all proportion to their presence in the population, a fact given statistical support by the Ministry of Justice analysis of those brought before the courts which showed 46 per cent being black or mixed race and 7 per cent being Asian – http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
Almost needless to say it was turned down.