Europe - The Official Thread

[Touring Mars]

Some work was going on in the foundations, I'm told. A friend who's a structural engineer saw the video of the moment of the strike and believes, given what she's read, that over time the concrete may have been shifting enough for small porous cavities to form around the pillar's internal steel reinforcements within thereby allowing moisture to gather. The lighting (a significant bolt) could have shattered internal sections (explosive steam exapnsion) if the structure wasn't in altogether good repair.

She believes this is a potential problem for many 60s/70s shutter-built structures. The chances of the 'perfect storm' of problems occuring are very low but the effects can be catastrophic.

I had read that some witnesses had said a lightning bolt had struck the bridge but I wasn't aware that it could have been the primary cause of the collapse...

Meanwhile, it emerged that the governing 5-Star Movement once described 'the imminent collapse of Ponte Morandi' as a "fairy tale" - the article has been deleted from their website, but it is still visible thanks to the Wayback Machine archives... oops.

https://web.archive.org/web/2018081...del-coordinamento-dei-comitati-no-gronda.html

 

[baldgye]

I had read that some witnesses had said a lightning bolt had struck the bridge but I wasn't aware that it could have been the primary cause of the collapse...

I’d read that it was a cloud burst + stationary traffic could have been the cause of the failure

 

[Touring Mars]

Greece has formally exited from its financial bailout programme after 8 years, 6 years later than originally planned.

While it is being hailed by the EU as a tremendous success (and it was from a certain point of view i.e. the Eurozone didn't collapse), many others point to the bailout as a colossal failure. The Greek economy is now some 25% smaller than it was before the start of the bailout, unemployment stands at over 20%, youth unemployment is at a staggering 43%, Greece's debt to GDP ratio is still almost 180%, and, despite being officially out of a financial bailout package, Greece remains subject to stringent austerity measures for decades to come.

The formal end of the bailout package means that Greece should (in theory, anyway) be able to borrow from financial markets again - however, ironically, it will no longer get the lower rates it enjoyed while subject of a formal bailout package. Also, it strikes me as a tad worrying that one key consequence of formally exiting the bailout programme means that Greece can now borrow 'normally' again. Despite the fact that Greece has returned to a surplus (as is a formal requirement for them to continue receiving debt relief), it still has a massive amount of debt and, according to Yanis Varoufakis (who certainly knows a heck of a lot more about the situation than most people), there is virtually no chance of it ever being repaid...

tl;dr version: Greece may have formally exited the bailout programme, but the coming months will be testing times for the Greek economy - if Greece fails to keep implementing the policies demanded of it by the EU, or fails to maintain a surplus until 2060 (!), then it will be back to square one.

-

edit: A friend of mine in Ithaca has posted an open letter to Tsipras stating what she believes the Greek government need to do to 'repay' the tremendous sacrifice of the Greek people now that they are 'out of debt'. I don't know if it has perhaps lost something in translation, or if she has just worded it badly, but I sincerely hope that she isn't labouring under the misapprehension that Greece isn't still in debt! I fear that she, and many others like her, might be none too impressed if they haven't already figured out that they are not going to get the kind of social windfall that they are (evidently) expecting from their beleaguered government, and nor has their massive debt gone anywhere...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Sweden: 58% of those convicted of rape/attempted rape are foreign born

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/8wA0LQ/ug-kartlagger-domda-valdtaktsman
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/domda-valdtaktsman-ofta-fodda-utomlands/

That doesn't include those with foreign born parents, only first generation immigrants.
The number for assault is even higher.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764

In cases where the victim did not know the attacker, the proportion of foreign-born offenders was more than 80%

 

[baldgye]

Sweden: 58% of those convicted of rape/attempted rape are foreign born

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/8wA0LQ/ug-kartlagger-domda-valdtaktsman
https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/domda-valdtaktsman-ofta-fodda-utomlands/

That doesn't include those with foreign born parents, only first generation immigrants.
The number for assault is even higher.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45269764

In cases where the victim did not know the attacker, the proportion of foreign-born offenders was more than 80%

When Sweden took in its highest number of asylum seekers in 2015, the number of reported rapes declined by 12%. At the height of the migration crisis, some 160,000 migrants arrived there - more per capita than any other EU country.

"We are very clear in the programme that it is a small percentage of the people coming from abroad who are convicted of rape," chief editor Ulf Johansson told the BBC.

He pointed out that the number of reported rapes in Sweden was far higher, so no conclusions could be drawn on the role of immigrants in sexual attacks.

This is all off the back of data produced by Swedish National TV. The data isn't really questioned and the BBC seemingly don't have full access to it, I imagine, as it would hurt audience figures for the TV show when it aired.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Sweden: 58% of those convicted of rape/attempted rape are foreign born

In cases where the victim did not know the attacker, the proportion of foreign-born offenders was more than 80%

It's an interesting take on the stat. It ignores that around 45% of immigrants in the top ten foreign-born figures (2016) are from nearby white christian countries. Maybe that fact doesn't fit the headline-writer's agenda?

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's an interesting take on the stat. It ignores that around 45% of immigrants in the top ten foreign-born figures (2016) are from nearby white christian countries. Maybe that fact doesn't fit the headline-writer's agenda?

That may be the immigration statistics for Sweden, but you can't say the ethnicity of the immigrants from those countries. For example we have a lot of Dutch settlers in certain parts of the UK but they are originally from Somalia who obtained a Dutch passport.

Also from the first article (google translated):

- The review also shows that over half of the convicted offenders were born outside of Europe. Young men from Afghanistan are pointed out, 45 of those convicted of rape or attempted rape come from there.
- For assault violence, the figure rises to 85 percent; 110 out of 129 convicted persons in the past five years were born abroad. 40 percent have lived here for a year or less.

Also have to remember that these are convicted criminals, so it's literally the tip of the iceberg as we don't know the ethnicity of those reported of rape.

 

[TenEightyOne]

you can't say the ethnicity of the immigrants from those countries.

Yes I can, they're detailed by countries of birth.

- The review also shows that over half of the convicted offenders were born outside of Europe. Young men from Afghanistan are pointed out, 45 of those convicted of rape or attempted rape come from there.

Which division strangely echoes the European/Non-European split. So (according to your figures in the first link - the second requires registration to view) there's no statistical demonstration that an immigrant from outside Europe is any more or less likely to commit (or to attempt to commit) rape than one from inside Europe.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Yes I can, they're detailed by countries of birth.

Mind if I have a look

 

[Touring Mars]

It's an interesting take on the stat. It ignores that around 45% of immigrants in the top ten foreign-born figures (2016) are from nearby white christian countries. Maybe that fact doesn't fit the headline-writer's agenda?

However, only 7% of those convictions were from European migrants, as opposed to 51% from non-EU countries.

They also don't include ethnicity since recording ethnicity of criminals is banned in Sweden.

edit: Sweden currently has a migrant population approaching 24% and around two-thirds of them come from outwith the EU - so non-EU foreign born nationals living in Sweden account for roughly 16% of the population... and 51% of rape convictions. Non-EU foreign born nationals living in Sweden account for about 8% of the population, and about 7% of rape convictions. Swedish-born nationals account for 76% of the population, and 42% of rape convictions.

edit 2: In other words, a non-EU foreign born national living in Sweden is 5.75 times more likely to be convicted of rape than a Swedish born national, and 3.4 times more likely than a non-Swedish EU born national. While there may well be some factors at play, it does seem to give some credence to the idea that there is a problem with migrant-related violent crime in recent years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mind if I have a look

Knock yourself out.

However, only 7% of those convictions were from European migrants, as opposed to 51% from non-EU countries.

I couldn't find that in the article? Gizza pointer

 

[Touring Mars]

I couldn't find that in the article? Gizza pointer

According to the stats on the BBC website, of the 843 rape convictions recorded, 58% were perpetrated by foreign born people. That means that 42% were born in Sweden. The pie chart, however, shows that 49.4% of rapes were perpetrated by people from 'Sweden and other EU countries', meaning that about 7.4% of rapes were perpetrated by people born in EU countries other than Sweden.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Knock yourself out.

Hmmm I'm not sure where you're getting that from?

I see this:

According to Eurostat, in 2010, there were 1.33 million foreign-born residents in Sweden, corresponding to 14.3% of the total population. Of these, 859,000 (64.3%) were born outside the EU and 477,000 (35.7%) were born in another EU Member State.[25][26]

The twenty largest groups of foreign-born persons in the Swedish civil registry in 2016 were

1. Syria (172,258)
2. Finland (150,877)
3. Iraq (140,830)
4. Poland (91,180)
5. Iran (74,096)
6. Somalia (66,369)
7. Yugoslavia (65,877)
8. Bosnia and Herzegovina (58,880)
9. Germany (50,863)
10. Turkey (48,299)

I then took Finland, Poland, Yugoslavia and Germany as a % of the top 10 and it's 32%

How did you work out 45%?

 

[Touring Mars]

I must confess that I don't really get why Sweden has banned the recording of ethnicity of offenders. Given that the number of migrants that Sweden has taken in in recent years - more per head of population than any other EU state - it actually seems quite remiss of them not to record basic facts about the perpetrators of crime, especially while in the midst of an unprecedented social experiment - information that arguably should be a matter of public record and could be used to influence future planning and decisions, such as policing and migration policy.

Ironically, not having this information plays right into the hands of the right-wingers whose xenophobic and often plain racist views cannot be countered by solid evidence that proves they are wrong. I suspect, however, that liberals are afraid that if such information were available, it might point to something that they don't want to hear i.e. evidence that migrants really are disproportionately responsible for more violent crimes than natives or other EU nationals (as appears to be the case as discussed above). However, without the information at hand, no-one really knows, and I'd argue that that is simply not a good thing in itself. If more information was recorded, it could be used to either discredit the right-wing or used to identify and target problem groups (if they were revealed to exist) and to inform policy with a solid evidential basis to justify it, but as things stand none of that is possible.

 

[Dotini]

I must confess that I don't really get why Sweden has banned the recording of ethnicity of offenders. Given that the number of migrants that Sweden has taken in in recent years - more per head of population than any other EU state - it actually seems quite remiss of them not to record basic facts about the perpetrators of crime, especially while in the midst of an unprecedented social experiment - information that arguably should be a matter of public record and could be used to influence future planning and decisions, such as policing and migration policy.

Ironically, it plays right into the hands of the right-wingers whose xenophobic and often plain racist views cannot be countered by solid evidence that proves they are wrong. I suspect, however, that liberals are afraid that if such information were available, it might point to something that they don't want to hear i.e. evidence that migrants really are disproportionately responsible for more violent crimes than natives or other EU nationals (as appears to be the case as discussed above). However, without the information at hand, no-one really knows, and I'd argue that that is simply not a good thing in itself. If more information was recorded, it could be used to either discredit the right-wing or used to target problem groups (if they were revealed to exist) and to inform policy with a solid evidential basis to justify it, but as things stand neither is possible.

Could you go so far as to say that "fake news" is preferable to censorship?

 

[Touring Mars]

Could you go so far as to say that "fake news" is preferable to censorship?

If by "fake news" you mean actual fabrications, then no. But if you mean bad news that people simply don't want to believe is true, then yes.

 

[Mr Tree]

I must confess that I don't really get why Sweden has banned the recording of ethnicity of offenders. Given that the number of migrants that Sweden has taken in in recent years - more per head of population than any other EU state - it actually seems quite remiss of them not to record basic facts about the perpetrators of crime, especially while in the midst of an unprecedented social experiment - information that arguably should be a matter of public record and could be used to influence future planning and decisions, such as policing and migration policy.

Ironically, not having this information plays right into the hands of the right-wingers whose xenophobic and often plain racist views cannot be countered by solid evidence that proves they are wrong. I suspect, however, that liberals are afraid that if such information were available, it might point to something that they don't want to hear i.e. evidence that migrants really are disproportionately responsible for more violent crimes than natives or other EU nationals (as appears to be the case as discussed above). However, without the information at hand, no-one really knows, and I'd argue that that is simply not a good thing in itself. If more information was recorded, it could be used to either discredit the right-wing or used to identify and target problem groups (if they were revealed to exist) and to inform policy with a solid evidential basis to justify it, but as things stand none of that is possible.

(Am I not understanding the term etnicity correct?)

But why would it ever be important to know the etnicity of a person related to crime. There are no biological diffrences in people making them more likely to commit crime.
There are however probably cultural reasons why, these cultural diffrences would be better measured according to the nation they were born in combined with whatever beliefsystem they uphold, including political beliefs, as I think these things are better measurements for the culture they grew up in then there etnicity.

Again I might not understand the term etnicity correctly in the context and I do agree we should try and find out what groups are or have an issue and why.

Edit: I also think 'the left' is worried that measurements about etnicity would lead to people making the false assumption that it's due to 'racial diffrences' as in it's there race they are more violent. While this is biologicly wrong from what I understand.

 

[HenrySwanson]

(Am I not understanding the term etnicity correct?)

But why would it ever be important to know the etnicity of a person related to crime. There are no biological diffrences in people making them more likely to commit crime.
There are however probably cultural reasons why, these cultural diffrences would be better measured according to the nation they were born in combined with whatever beliefsystem they uphold, including political beliefs, as I think these things are better measurements for the culture they grew up in then there etnicity.

Again I might not understand the term etnicity correctly in the context and I do agree we should try and find out what groups are or have an issue and why.

Edit: I also think 'the left' is worried that measurements about etnicity would lead to people making the false assumption that it's due to 'racial diffrences' as in it's there race they are more violent. While this is biologicly wrong from what I understand.

I'm not saying you're wrong but how do we know that would be a false assumption?

Wasn't there a study that found black people in better socio-economic situations were more likely to be arrested than whites in America? Not saying that disproves the theory that it could be because of culture only/mainly

 

[Mr Tree]

I'm not saying you're wrong but how do we know that would be a false assumption?

Wasn't there a study that found black people in better socio-economic situations were more likely to be arrested than whites in America?

I have no idea about the study but if that's the case it probably means race is an actual thing among humans. Current scientific consensus is that race is something we came up with as a social construct, that's why I claim that would be a false assumption.
Also you seem to imply (correct me if wrong) that it's due to them being black as in the problem has to lie with them. There is also a chance black people get arrested more due to them being stopped more. For the record I'm not claiming one over the other and there could be more explanations then the 2 posed here.

So if one can show there to be actual biological diffrences between the races that's when we should start registering by race/etnicity. But the thing is we have claimed these things before, it has always been a faulty assumption up to today.

And no you aren't in favour of what it has lead to but truth is these ideas have lead to fascism in general and for example to nazism and segregation. There are probably more examples but these sprung to mind.
I also didn't write thus last part to stop the conversation, you're welcome to give counter examples and I'm not equating you to the people who performed these horrific acts.

 

[UKMikey]

Also you seem to imply (correct me if wrong) that it's due to them being black as in the problem has to lie with them. There is also a chance black people get arrested more due to them being stopped more. For the record I'm not claiming one over the other and there could be more explanations then the 2 posed here.

I guess it'd help to know how many of those arrests led to convictions before drawing any conclusions.

 

[Touring Mars]

(Am I not understanding the term etnicity correct?)

But why would it ever be important to know the etnicity of a person related to crime. There are no biological diffrences in people making them more likely to commit crime.
There are however probably cultural reasons why, these cultural diffrences would be better measured according to the nation they were born in combined with whatever beliefsystem they uphold, including political beliefs, as I think these things are better measurements for the culture they grew up in then there etnicity.

Again I might not understand the term etnicity correctly in the context and I do agree we should try and find out what groups are or have an issue and why.

Edit: I also think 'the left' is worried that measurements about etnicity would lead to people making the false assumption that it's due to 'racial diffrences' as in it's there race they are more violent. While this is biologicly wrong from what I understand.

The trouble with recording things like political or religious views is that these things are quite subjective and subject to change or dishonesty. I agree that it is arguably more important to record facts like country of birth, country of residence, as well as race and ethnicity. Ironically, because Sweden doesn't allow this kind of 'profiling', there are no official statistics available to show whether or not certain racial or ethnic groups are being treated more harshly than others - of course, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. While I reckon there are some possible down sides to such profiling, I reckon the potential benefits far out-weight the risks.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have no idea about the study but if that's the case it probably means race is an actual thing among humans. Current scientific consensus is that race is something we came up with as a social construct, that's why I claim that would be a false assumption.
Also you seem to imply (correct me if wrong) that it's due to them being black as in the problem has to lie with them. There is also a chance black people get arrested more due to them being stopped more. For the record I'm not claiming one over the other and there could be more explanations then the 2 posed here.

So if one can show there to be actual biological diffrences between the races that's when we should start registering by race/etnicity. But the thing is we have claimed these things before, it has always been a faulty assumption up to today.

And no you aren't in favour of what it has lead to but truth is these ideas have lead to fascism in general and for example to nazism and segregation. There are probably more examples but these sprung to mind.
I also didn't write thus last part to stop the conversation, you're welcome to give counter examples and I'm not equating you to the people who performed these horrific acts.

So here's the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ck-kids/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.281e33fe9e31

And staying in America:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

Black people make up roughly 13% of the United States population, and white people make up 64%. Black people make up 40% of the prison population, and white people 39%. Therefore, even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers.

But if we take a UK example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...esh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html

Twelve per cent of London’s men are black. But 54 per cent of the street crimes committed by men in London, along with 46 per cent of the knife crimes and more than half of the gun crimes, are thought by the Metropolitan Police to have been committed by black men.

One has to wonder, are we making excuses for black men?

 

[baldgye]

One has to wonder, are we making excuses for black men?

rofl

TIL crime is genetic

 

[Touring Mars]

So here's the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ck-kids/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.281e33fe9e31

And staying in America:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

Black people make up roughly 13% of the United States population, and white people make up 64%. Black people make up 40% of the prison population, and white people 39%. Therefore, even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers.

But if we take a UK example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...esh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html

Twelve per cent of London’s men are black. But 54 per cent of the street crimes committed by men in London, along with 46 per cent of the knife crimes and more than half of the gun crimes, are thought by the Metropolitan Police to have been committed by black men.

One has to wonder, are we making excuses for black men?

This is a fairly good example of how racial profiling can be used for more than just 'pinning the blame' on a specific race or ethnic group - these stats can reveal whether or not policing is being done fairly, and also potentially shed light on the reasons why certain groups are becoming more prone to crime. There is a parallel with issues all across Europe at the moment as certain migrant communities struggle for equal treatment under the law and equal opportunities - as long as these inequalities exist, then it is hardly a surprise if a higher percentage resort to crime. In other words, just because a certain racial group might be responsible for more crime in a specific country doesn't mean that race or ethnicity per se is the reason, but it is more to do with the way that country deals with migrants and non-native ethnicities. But without the statistics available, it's hard to see how these issues can be identified and addressed.

 

[Mr Tree]

So here's the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ck-kids/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.281e33fe9e31

And staying in America:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbota/black-crime-rates-your-st_b_8078586.html

Black people make up roughly 13% of the United States population, and white people make up 64%. Black people make up 40% of the prison population, and white people 39%. Therefore, even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers.

But if we take a UK example:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...esh-light-on-link-between-crime-and-race.html

Twelve per cent of London’s men are black. But 54 per cent of the street crimes committed by men in London, along with 46 per cent of the knife crimes and more than half of the gun crimes, are thought by the Metropolitan Police to have been committed by black men.

One has to wonder, are we making excuses for black men?

Ok let's try an other way to understand where you stand on this issue. Because you're giving numbers and then imply things imo without outright saying it so I'm scared to strawman you.
Do you think blacks are more involved in crimes due to them being black?
If yes: What is it about black people that makes more of them criminals? Is it biological in your opinion?

The trouble with recording things like political or religious views is that these things are quite subjective and subject to change or dishonesty. I agree that it is arguably more important to record facts like country of birth, country of residence, as well as race and ethnicity. Ironically, because Sweden doesn't allow this kind of 'profiling', there are no official statistics available to show whether or not certain racial or ethnic groups are being treated more harshly than others - of course, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. While I reckon there are some possible down sides to such profiling, I reckon the potential benefits far out-weight the risks.

Well I can.get behind this. Like you say we should watch out for profiling skewing the numbers. But indeed the beliefsystem thing is to easy to be 'gamed'. But I still wonder 1 thing. As a protection against profiling I can get why to include etnicity and maybe we can have a statistical correlation between etnicity and certain cultures. (I'm sure there is just look at religion, I just don't know if and how the correlation has been studied).

 

[Tired Tyres]

(Am I not understanding the term etnicity correct?)

But why would it ever be important to know the etnicity of a person related to crime. There are no biological diffrences in people making them more likely to commit crime.
There are however probably cultural reasons why, these cultural diffrences would be better measured according to the nation they were born in combined with whatever beliefsystem they uphold, including political beliefs, as I think these things are better measurements for the culture they grew up in then there etnicity.

Again I might not understand the term etnicity correctly in the context and I do agree we should try and find out what groups are or have an issue and why.

Edit: I also think 'the left' is worried that measurements about etnicity would lead to people making the false assumption that it's due to 'racial diffrences' as in it's there race they are more violent. While this is biologicly wrong from what I understand.

It is important for two reasons.

1. If there is a crime issue with a specific etnicity, you need to know that so you can address the cause.

2. If you don't record etnicity how do you know if your police aren't deliberately targeting a minority?

 

[HenrySwanson]

This is a fairly good example of how racial profiling can be used for more than just 'pinning the blame' on a specific race or ethnic group - these stats can reveal whether or not policing is being done fairly, and also potentially shed light on the reasons why certain groups are becoming more prone to crime. There is a parallel with issues all across Europe at the moment as certain migrant communities struggle for equal treatment under the law and equal opportunities - as long as these inequalities exist, then it is hardly a surprise if a higher percentage resort to crime. In other words, just because a certain racial group might be responsible for more crime in a specific country doesn't mean that race or ethnicity per se is the reason, but it is more to do with the way that country deals with migrants and non-native ethnicities. But without the statistics available, it's hard to see how these issues can be identified and addressed.

It's an interesting argument but one I don't subscribe to for a few reasons:

1. My family came from Jamaica on my dad's side and Sri Lanka from my mum's. The Jamaicans split with a lot of family going to Birmingham whilst a few came to London. Quite a few who went to Birmingham became involved with gangs and therefore criminality. I wonder, if we had the same upbringing how could institutional racism account for them choosing a life of crime? Are there such differences between Birmingham and London to account for this?

2. Most people are aware of the covering up of sexual abuses on white children by predominantly Muslim males. For the argument favoured amongst liberals to work, those people who covered up Muslims for fear of being cast as racist would have to, simultaneously be racist against blacks - a pretty preposterous view. Why cover up one race yet not afford that to another.

3. The sheer volume is mind blowing and, by virtue of the great numbers involved doesn't explain why it is limited to blacks. Why is there no discrimination against Hindus or Chinese for example? A group that comprises 12 percent of a population, yet is responsible for over half of the street crime suggests that the police would be working on overdrive to catch all the black perpetrators yet ignoring masses of other crime by every other race.

4. The argument for how a country deals with migrants as a reason for them turning to a life of crime is shaky at best. Sweden has bent over backwards to welcome migrants and yet over half of their rapes are caused by them. How exactly is one to make migrants feel more integrated?

In this country we have hate crime laws, institutional cover ups so as not to appear racist and affirmative action and we still look at the perpetrators backgrounds, shrug our shoulders and say, well it's not their fault so it must be ours somewhere along the line. We must literally be mad as a country/continent.

 

[TenEightyOne]

One has to wonder, are we making excuses for black men?

That's an easy one. No. What we do is understand the reasons why poverty creates gangs. Looking at the social demographic for the perpetrators of crime involves looking at far more than just ethnicity, and so does understanding gang violence.

Glasgow's a good example. Some of those gangs have funny names but a wouldnae tell them that.

 

[Mr Tree]

It's an interesting argument but one I don't subscribe to for a few reasons:

1. My family came from Jamaica on my dad's side and Sri Lanka from my mum's. The Jamaicans split with a lot of family going to Birmingham whilst a few came to London. Quite a few who went to Birmingham became involved with gangs and therefore criminality. I wonder, if we had the same upbringing how could institutional racism account for them choosing a life of crime? Are there such differences between Birmingham and London to account for this?

2. Most people are aware of the covering up of sexual abuses on white children by predominantly Muslim males. For the argument favoured amongst liberals to work, those people who covered up Muslims for fear of being cast as racist would have to, simultaneously be racist against blacks - a pretty preposterous view. Why cover up one race yet not afford that to another.

3. The sheer volume is mind blowing and, by virtue of the great numbers involved doesn't explain why it is limited to blacks. Why is there no discrimination against Hindus or Chinese for example? A group that comprises 12 percent of a population, yet is responsible for over half of the street crime suggests that the police would be working on overdrive to catch all the black perpetrators yet ignoring masses of other crime by every other race.

4. The argument for how a country deals with migrants as a reason for them turning to a life of crime is shaky at best. Sweden has bent over backwards to welcome migrants and yet over half of their rapes are caused by them. How exactly is one to make migrants feel more integrated?

In this country we have hate crime laws, institutional cover ups so as not to appear racist and affirmative action and we still look at the perpetrators backgrounds, shrug our shoulders and say, well it's not their fault so it must be ours somewhere along the line. We must literally be mad as a country/continent.

Again do you say it's their 'race' that makes them more violent? Because currently your position is not clear.

If it's not due to there race what do you propose the cause is?

I'm just trying to understand what your position is.

 

[Biggles]

That's an easy one. No. What we do is understand the reasons why poverty creates gangs. Looking at the social demographic for the perpetrators of crime involves looking at far more than just ethnicity, and so does understanding gang violence.

Glasgow's a good example. Some of those gangs have funny names but a wouldnae tell them that.

What about the Peaky Blinders?