');
The Unz Review •�An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Richard Knight Archive
The British Police’s Anti-racism Today

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library •�B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments
List of Bookmarks

Are young Black men victimised by society or is society victimised by young Black men? Specifically, do the police have it in for young Black men or do young Black men have it in for the police? For more than twenty years it has been the settled opinion of the British police that it is society and especially they, the police, who are at fault. This was illustrated by a press release produced by the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset in June 2023.[1]Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/c...acism/ .

Before we come to the press release, consider the following points from Britain’s racial history. The first crime to be reported as a mugging occurred in 1972 when an elderly widower was stabbed to death near Waterloo Station by three young Black men as he walked home from the theatre.[2]Stuart Hall et al., 1978, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan, p. 3. They had tried to rob him; he had resisted.

It has been consistently stated over the decades that eighty per cent of London’s muggings are carried out by Black people, which makes a Black person about fifty times as likely to carry out a mugging as anybody else.[3]In 1975 a march was held under the slogan “Stop The Muggers. 80% of muggers are Black. 85% of victims are White” (Paul Gilroy, 1987, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, London: Routledge, p. 120). Twenty years later, Paul Condon as Metropolitan Police Commissioner stated in a letter to prominent Black figures such as Diane Abbott MP that eighty per cent of London’s muggers were Black. He invited them to a meeting where their support would be requested for a planned drive against the crime. Several recipients, including Diane Abbott, declined to attend the meeting. One passed the letter to the media, who quoted activists condemning Condon for saying that Black people committed so much crime. The police were out to get them; the statement was a licence for racists, and so forth. What all this did, as intended, was encouraged the idea that mugging was not the problem; the problem was that someone had said that it was mostly the work of young Black men. See Independent, Aug. 4th 1995, “Mugging: criminal or political offence?”, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mugging-crimin...6.html . In 1973, 1,500 such crimes were reported in London;[4]In 1973 the headline appeared: “Muggings reach four a day in London” (Hall et al 1978, op. cit., p. 8). by 1995 the number was 33,000. But reported muggings are a fraction of the total. It seems that in 1981 a certain Black twelve-year-old might have carried out a mugging every day.[5]In his memoir of his days at a comprehensive school in London in the 1980s, John-Paul Flintoff writes that a Black classmate came in one day and gave him an empty wallet to look after. The next day he did the same. Flintoff does not tell us whether the pattern continued. See John-Paul Flintoff, 1998, Comp: A Survivor’s Tale, London: Indigo Orion, pp. 103-04. If so and if London contained 500 boys like him, this would mean more than 175,000 muggings for the city in the year.

Not just that first one but many other muggings have been fatal. For example, in 1993 Constance Brown, 72, was knocked to the ground in South London by a young Black man who smashed her head against the pavement before running off with her handbag. Elizabeth Pinhom, 96, died in hospital in 1997 after being pulled down the front steps of her house when she opened the door to a young Black man, who went off with her bag.[6]J.F.Cronin, no date (possibly 2000), “The forgotten victims”, Right Now magazine.

It was in 1970 that young Black men started attacking the police, according to an activist from Trinidad, who wrote that skirmishes and violent confrontations continued throughout the decade.[7]Darcus Howe, 1988, From Bobby to Babylon: Blacks and the British Police, London: Race Today, p. 52. Young Black men first used knives against the police at the Notting Hill carnival in 1976.[8]Paul Gilroy 1987, op. cit., p. 96 quotes the Telegraph.

The activist, Darcus Howe, was a great admirer of the Brixton riots, where in 1981 young Black men threw petrol bombs at the police and set fire to buildings and vehicles. Howe described the riots as different “in range and depth from previous revolts waged by blacks against the police. This general uprising”, he continued, “stands head and shoulders above all that had gone before”.[9]Howe 1988 op. cit., p. 52. In another riot, in Tottenham, North London in 1985, a policeman was hacked to death by young Black men with machetes.[10]Metropolitan Police, no date, “MPS Historical Timeline: Broadwater Farm Riot 1985”, http://www.met.police.uk/history/broadwater_farm.htm .

Black people had no legitimate grievance against the police on either occasion. The Brixton riots followed a crackdown on street crime. The Tottenham riot started after a woman died of a heart attack when the police came to see her about her son, who had given a false name when found in a car with a fake road licence.

During the 1990s the war on the police was conducted mainly through the media, who aired activists’ portrayal of them as, of course, “racist”. The activist-media alliance met with nothing but success, winning a decisive triumph in 1999 when a retired High-Court judge, Sir William Macpherson, described the police as institutionally racist, a conclusion he reached via a definition that allowed any institution to be described as institutionally racist. Although the police presumably saw the trick, they were prevailed upon to submit, after which they came effectively under the control of anti-racists and rapidly became anti-racist themselves. For example, in 2000 a Deputy Assistant Commissioner boasted that he had reduced the number of young Black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous year,[11]This was John Grieve. See Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument. during which muggings went up by two thirds.[12]Muggings went up nineteen per cent in March 1999 alone (Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”). Towards the end of June 2000 they were reported to have risen 38 per cent in the previous twelve months (Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”). This means, on reasonable assumptions about figures month by month, that for every 100 muggings in London at the end of February 1999 there were 178 fifteen months later.

But it would be more accurate to say that the police became more anti-racist after 1999, for they had started on the road of anti-racism long before. In 1981, a report on the Brixton riots by Lord Scarman, a Law Lord, insistently called on the police to go easy on Black crime.[13]Lord Scarman deemed that the police’s duty to maintain public tranquillity trumped their duty to enforce the law (Lord Scarman, 1982 [1981], The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58). Therefore if an attempt to enforce the law might not be received in a tranquil manner, they should not make the attempt. Secondly he advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Scarman, Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic. Some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Scarman, Paragraph 5.76). As a result, within ten years they were allowing open drug dealing on the street.[14]The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. Until the shooting the author had been blanking the dealers out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, he had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive. Scarman also called on the police to recruit more non-White officers, which led them to lower their admission standards for non-Whites, who enjoyed special treatment once they were in.[15]Lord Scarman had required the police to acquire more Black officers, the aim being “that the composition of the police fully reflects that of the society the police serve” (Scarman 1982, op. cit., Paragraph 5.13). In 1989 a superintendent attributed discipline problems with West Indian officers to the fact that non-White recruits were below par. A White officer couldn’t see “why some other bugger shouldn’t have to [study every night] just because he happens to have a different colour skin”. See Roger Graef, 1989, Talking Blues: The Police in Their Own Words, London: Collins Harvill, pp. 134-38. In 1996 they offered sub-standard young Black men a free ten-week course to help them pass the recruitment tests.[16]Telegraph, Feb. 26th 1996. In 1998 they launched a scheme to “attract, develop and retain minority ethnic recruits, particularly at a senior level”.[17]Metropolitan Police, March 15th 1999, A Police Service for All the People: Report of the MPS Ethnic Minority (Recruitment and Advancement) Working Group. http://www.met.police.uk/police/mps/mps/press/1099.htm . As early as 1970, when a workman told the police that children were stealing from his lorry and throwing bricks through people’s windows, he was told that there was nothing they could do because the children were Black.[18]ThamesTv, Nov. 27th 2020, “1970s London | Poverty in the 70s | North Islington | Community Tension | This week | 1970”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYhYdsHh2p0.

Confirmed anti-racists by 1999, the police have been upending their traditional values ever since, a process of inversion seen also in every other British institution. This has been accomplished by means of political correctness, of which, if one sees it as a collection of ideologies, anti-racism is the leading one.

So there is nothing new or unusual about the self-hating press release we are about to look at. It is just the sort of thing one expects from the British police, who, after spending twenty years being attacked and accused by Black criminals and anti-racists, have spent twenty more trying to be their friends.

Entitled “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, the document is typical of political correctness in being vague, evasive and inclined to presume what is far from obvious. It fails to define its terms and uses jargon not just to create an impression of expertise but also to defy comprehension. It treats Black people as members of a semi-royal class, not calling them Black people, an expression with only three syllables, but showing its extreme respect by calling them “those who are from Black heritage communities”.

According to Sarah Crew, she intends to make her force anti-racist. What does this mean? Pro-Black.

She mentions a report about disproportionality in her county’s criminal justice system. What is disproportionality? This refers to the fact that the criminal justice system deals with Black people out of all proportion to their numbers in the population, which, according to anti-racism, means that there is something wrong with it. According to anti-racism, the races are the same, therefore no system should deal with one at a higher rate than with another.

Sarah Crew describes a review of the Metropolitan Police as a “stark reminder for policing … that the need for real and profound change is essential if we’re to retain the public’s trust and confidence”. This combines illiteracy with presumption, vagueness and anti-racist code. Presumably it is change rather than the need for it that she deems essential, but why is it needed if the police have the public’s trust and confidence? She means “gain” rather than “retain”. Why does she describe the review as a reminder? Did the police know that real and profound change was needed? Nor does she say what this real and profound change must be. Had she wished to make herself clear, she might have said that the police must look the other way when Black people commit crimes, thereby reducing the disproportionality.

As for “the public’s trust and confidence”, this is a stock phrase that requires translation. “The public” doesn’t mean the public here but the Black public, whose trust and confidence the police are supposed to have forfeited by their “racism”. This is an anti-racist pretence, for the police didn’t have Black people’s trust or confidence to start with. The police adopt the pretence so as to appear to admit to their imaginary guilt. Nor does “trust and confidence” mean trust and confidence; it means approval. The police seek the approval of Black people, specifically criminals, who want them to keep away from their crimes. This the police will never be able to do entirely, for there are times, such as when a murder is committed, when they are expected to get involved. Thus they must perpetually try to please their masters, knowing that they will never quite succeed.

Sarah Crew reports that she has had “encouraging conversations … around institutional racism”. That’s nice, but what is institutional racism? You might think that it would be pervasive racial discrimination in an institution, but Sir William Macpherson defined it as in effect any lack of pro-Black discrimination. Sarah Crew, however, has no doubt that it exists at Avon and Somerset, going by four criteria given by Baroness Casey, which she lists. But Baroness Casey’s criteria are meaningless for she does not define racism in terms of which she defines institutional racism. Is racism a sentiment, such as aversion to immigration, or an empirical belief, such as that Black people are prone to crime? Is it an act performed by an agent of an institution, such as treating people differently by race, or indeed failing to treat them differently by race? Baroness Casey gives no clue even as to which ballpark her concept might be in.

But “I must accept that the definition fits”, says Sarah Crew, referring to Baroness Casey’s definition of institutional racism. In what way does she think it fits? Even if we imagine that she knows what Baroness Casey means by racism and hence by institutional racism, what took her to her conclusion? For example, if she thinks that Baroness Casey’s third criterion fits, which is that “Racism and racial bias are reinforced within systems”, where does she see racism and racial bias being reinforced at Avon and Somerset? Could she give us some examples? Apparently not.

Baroness Casey’s fourth criterion is that a police force under-protects and over-polices Black heritage people”. This was a popular slogan with anti-racists in the 1980s, but, again, what does it mean? What are the police failing to protect Black people from that they are protecting others from, and if over-policing Black people means paying too much attention to their crimes, how much attention should be paid to them?

“This”, writes Sarah Crew, “is about recognising the structural and institutional barriers that exist and which put people at a disadvantage”. What structural and institutional barriers? She doesn’t say.

She states that “Not being racist is no longer good enough” but doesn’t explain why not. Surely if all her officers refrained from being racist, whatever that might mean, there would be no racism in her force and all would be well. But she thinks that not doing something means standing by while others do it, who should be pounced on: “It is no longer okay to be a bystander and do nothing, to be part of a system that disadvantages one group of people over another”. What she means is that one must be not merely non-racist but anti-racist. One must identify an enemy class, putting oneself on the side of good, and have an ideology that requires non-Whites to be given special treatment.

What does she mean by one group being disadvantaged over another? It’s the disproportionality again. Black people commit crimes at a higher rate than others, therefore they get convicted at a higher rate, therefore they go to prison at a higher rate, therefore they are disadvantaged.

Why must Sarah Crew always speak of the “system” rather than the level at which things actually happen, the level of the individual? It’s because there is no “racism” at the level of the individual. It can only be found in the statistics, which can tell us about “the system”. Or, it is the system that must be transformed, therefore it is in the system that racism must be found.

Apparently she isn’t interested in criminals and their wrongdoing; she is interested in the police and their wrongdoing. This is what attracted her to the job, she says: “the fight against injustice and unfairness”. It’s about “a recognition that the system is unfair, and our job is to make it fair”. She doesn’t say how it is “unfair”, but we can guess. It’s the disproportionality.

She wants to apologise. “Accept it and say sorry” is her policy, and again: “What we can do is say … we’re sorry”. She doesn’t say what she wants to say sorry for or to whom. Presumably it’s to Black people, for the disproportionality again. She wants to apologise to all those who have been convicted of crimes that a better system would have overlooked to make itself more proportional.

She repeats her reference to the “trust and confidence of our communities”, seeming to think that it is because this is lacking that more Black people don’t report crimes committed against them. She has had enough of Black people as offenders; she wants Black victims. We read the heading: “Supporting Black heritage victims of crime”. She’s not bothered about protecting anyone else from crime.

She doesn’t want the police to transform themselves alone. She wants Black people to take part so that “communities [will be] involved in changing our systems”. It’s not enough for her that Black people, through their activists, largely control the police already. She wants them to have more control.

It’s the same with complaints made against the police. Presumably she gets plenty already, but she wants more, so she is “working on a programme … to support young people in understanding … what to do if they feel a police power is not being used legitimately”. This recalls the case of Sarah Everard, a young woman who was killed by an off-duty policeman in 2021. United behind the idea that all men are mortally dangerous, especially policemen, feminists were obliged when the police encouraged women to question the legitimacy of a policeman who might question them.[19]BBC, Oct. 1st 2021, “Sarah Everard: Challenge plain-clothes officers, Met Police says”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58757375 . He might be a murderer like Wayne Couzens. The guilt-addicted police welcome anyone who might accuse or suspect them of wrongdoing.

She mentions a scheme that allows people to “avoid a criminal justice outcome for low-level or first-time offences”. The trouble is, she says, that disposing of a matter out of court requires an admission of guilt, “which research has shown can be a barrier to young men of Black heritage”. In other words, young Black men rarely admit they have offended, which leads to “harsher and disproportionate criminal justice outcomes”. So it is hard to see how the scheme is going to work unless the police avoid all contact with these offenders.

She mentions “cultural trauma”, a concept that is just catching on. When Edward Kemp, director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, confessed to the academy’s “institutional racism” in 2020, he wrote: “We are profoundly sorry for the role we have played in the traumatic and oppressive experiences of our current and past Black students”.[20]Ikon London Magazine, June 30th 2020, email from the Director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, https://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/rada-goes-woke/ . The following year, Goldsmith’s, part of the University of London, proposed to narrow the “achievement gap” between Black students and others by allowing Black students extra time to finish their assignments. They would also be able to defer their exams if they had suffered “racial trauma”, it being up to them to say whether they had or not.[21]History Debunked, June 18th 2021, “How British universities plan to boost the achievement of Black students”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOb9CO8qLGI. Neither Kemp nor Goldsmith’s said what racial trauma was, and nor does Sarah Crew, which is not surprising since the term’s only purpose is to give White people something new to accuse themselves of inflicting on Black people, who can use it as yet another excuse for their failures or offences. But Sarah Crew’s force is “committed to becoming a ‘Trauma Informed’ organisation”.

And so in nothing but repulsive English Sarah Crew bows and scrapes to Black people, conceals her meaning, assumes that we already accept what she wants us to accept, talks vaguely about “the system” but never about what is actually done, and uses meaningless slogans and undefined terms left and right. As she goes, she not only puts on a display of institutional self-abasement that would make a statue cringe, but presents herself as noble. Her aim in all this is to persuade us that the police and the rest of the criminal justice system mistreat Black people but might redeem themselves by turning a blind eye to their crimes.

It is to this level of sycophancy, dishonesty and desertion of principle that the police were reduced by anti-racism more than twenty years ago, when the last memory of their original job of preventing and detecting crime without regard to race began to fade. Since then, race has been all-important. “Was this crime committed by someone White? Then let’s get him! Someone Black? Ignore it!” This is the thinking that was pressed on the police throughout the 1980s and ‘90s by anti-racists, aided by the occasional Law Lord or retired High-Court judge, which in this century became the police’s second nature. It is second nature to Sarah Crew, it was second nature to whoever made her a Chief Constable, and it is presumably second nature to all our other Chief Constables. These are the sort of people who like to think, even as they bestow one favour after another on young Black men, that our society and especially they in the police have it in for young Black men.

Notes

[1] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/chief-constable-sarah-crew-on-institutional-racism/ .

[2] Stuart Hall et al., 1978, Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State, and Law and Order, Basingstoke: Macmillan, p. 3.

[3] In 1975 a march was held under the slogan “Stop The Muggers. 80% of muggers are Black. 85% of victims are White” (Paul Gilroy, 1987, There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack, London: Routledge, p. 120). Twenty years later, Paul Condon as Metropolitan Police Commissioner stated in a letter to prominent Black figures such as Diane Abbott MP that eighty per cent of London’s muggers were Black. He invited them to a meeting where their support would be requested for a planned drive against the crime. Several recipients, including Diane Abbott, declined to attend the meeting. One passed the letter to the media, who quoted activists condemning Condon for saying that Black people committed so much crime. The police were out to get them; the statement was a licence for racists, and so forth. What all this did, as intended, was encouraged the idea that mugging was not the problem; the problem was that someone had said that it was mostly the work of young Black men. See Independent, Aug. 4th 1995, “Mugging: criminal or political offence?”, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/mugging-criminal-or-political-offence-1594666.html .

[4] In 1973 the headline appeared: “Muggings reach four a day in London” (Hall et al 1978, op. cit., p. 8).

[5] In his memoir of his days at a comprehensive school in London in the 1980s, John-Paul Flintoff writes that a Black classmate came in one day and gave him an empty wallet to look after. The next day he did the same. Flintoff does not tell us whether the pattern continued. See John-Paul Flintoff, 1998, Comp: A Survivor’s Tale, London: Indigo Orion, pp. 103-04.

[6] J.F.Cronin, no date (possibly 2000), “The forgotten victims”, Right Now magazine.

[7] Darcus Howe, 1988, From Bobby to Babylon: Blacks and the British Police, London: Race Today, p. 52.

[8] Paul Gilroy 1987, op. cit., p. 96 quotes the Telegraph.

[9] Howe 1988 op. cit., p. 52.

[10] Metropolitan Police, no date, “MPS Historical Timeline: Broadwater Farm Riot 1985”, http://www.met.police.uk/history/broadwater_farm.htm .

[11] This was John Grieve. See Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument.

[12] Muggings went up nineteen per cent in March 1999 alone (Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”). Towards the end of June 2000 they were reported to have risen 38 per cent in the previous twelve months (Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”). This means, on reasonable assumptions about figures month by month, that for every 100 muggings in London at the end of February 1999 there were 178 fifteen months later.

[13] Lord Scarman deemed that the police’s duty to maintain public tranquillity trumped their duty to enforce the law (Lord Scarman, 1982 [1981], The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58). Therefore if an attempt to enforce the law might not be received in a tranquil manner, they should not make the attempt. Secondly he advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Scarman, Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic. Some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Scarman, Paragraph 5.76).

[14] The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. Until the shooting the author had been blanking the dealers out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, he had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive.

[15] Lord Scarman had required the police to acquire more Black officers, the aim being “that the composition of the police fully reflects that of the society the police serve” (Scarman 1982, op. cit., Paragraph 5.13). In 1989 a superintendent attributed discipline problems with West Indian officers to the fact that non-White recruits were below par. A White officer couldn’t see “why some other bugger shouldn’t have to [study every night] just because he happens to have a different colour skin”. See Roger Graef, 1989, Talking Blues: The Police in Their Own Words, London: Collins Harvill, pp. 134-38.

[16] Telegraph, Feb. 26th 1996.

[17] Metropolitan Police, March 15th 1999, A Police Service for All the People: Report of the MPS Ethnic Minority (Recruitment and Advancement) Working Group. http://www.met.police.uk/police/mps/mps/press/1099.htm .

[18] ThamesTv, Nov. 27th 2020, “1970s London | Poverty in the 70s | North Islington | Community Tension | This week | 1970”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYhYdsHh2p0.

[19] BBC, Oct. 1st 2021, “Sarah Everard: Challenge plain-clothes officers, Met Police says”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58757375 .

[20] Ikon London Magazine, June 30th 2020, email from the Director of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, https://www.ikonlondonmagazine.com/rada-goes-woke/ .

[21] History Debunked, June 18th 2021, “How British universities plan to boost the achievement of Black students”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOb9CO8qLGI.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
Hide 59�CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I love the message by the young black cunt. “Stop murdering my brothers and sisters.” The hilarity of the irony in this is immeasurable. For every time a cop actually “murders” a munt they probably murder 2500 hundred of themselves. What these retarded chimps can’t seem to get through their thick empty heads is the overwhelming majority of the time a cop is forced to kill a NAPA, it’s ironclad, justifiable. It’s so obvious what needs to be done, but it’s a dream that’ll never happen because there are far too many ignorant assed, guilt consumed Whites that are convinced that nothing this sub human species does is their fault.

  2. Why is Black capitalized in this? It’s not a great idea to do this with American blacks, either, but at least they have the excuse of being a specific ethnic group themselves, centuries isolated from their racial brethren and semi-isolated from others in their home. (It’s been suggested that black Americans top even the Kurds as the world’s largest ethnic group without a nation-state of its own. But several groups in India might differ.)

    Blacks in Britain are either of recent West Indian or recent African stock, meaning an ethnic identifier is readily available. Thus, black is merely a racial category, and should not take a capital per traditional usage. Unless you want to bring back Negroid, along with Caucasoid and Mongoloid.

    •�Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    •�Replies: @europeasant
    , @artichoke
  3. Colin Wright says: •�Website

    ‘…our society and especially they in the police have it in for young Black men…’

    So they should. About half of all young black men are criminals.

  4. Franz says:

    She wants to apologise to all those who have been convicted of crimes that a better system would have overlooked to make itself more proportional.

    The only actual “fix” for the system would be sending all the blacks to a black country where their criminality would almost certainly be overlooked in a sea of yet more black criminality.

    It’s whites building a nation and then having to put up with black behavior that she should apologize for.

    •�Agree: Pastit, HammerJack, Renard
  5. Sarah sounds very similar to the psycho lesbians we have running most of the police departments here in America. Small world.

    •�Agree: europeasant
  6. Our own negro citizens need to go back to africa with a sincere plan of help so they can be leaders and find their destiny and be first class citizens they deserve to be, instead giving money to countries that hate us and blax being 2nd class citizens here in the US cause there will always be a color line drawn down the middle that blax cant cross unless they marvelize all the whites which i dont think they can do, George Lincoln Rockwell…

  7. HT says:

    Anti-racism equals anti-white and anti-civilization and that is true 100% of the time.

    •�Agree: Renard
    •�Replies: @HammerJack
  8. Al Ross says:

    Thank you , Mr. Knight for an excellent article.

    For those who wish to learn more about the etiology of police anti – White policies :

    http://drfrankellis.blogspot.com/2012/04/macpherson-report-anti-racist-hysteria_15.html

  9. Where did they get this Marxist psycho-bitch Sarah Crew from? Sounds like she really has no experience in policing, but plenty of experience in Cultural Marxist theory. IS she a left-over from the Frankfurt School?

    •�Agree: europeasant
  10. @HT

    Exactly. I wish this author wouldn’t use their language so consistently. It’s ipso facto anti-white and mincing words isn’t helping. Quite the contrary, it’s disarming ourselves while supplying more and more ammo to those who want us dead.

    •�Agree: Renard
  11. Pastit says:

    The fantasy that cops have it out for negros is the biggest lie out there. Blacks committ an overwhelming majority of the crime in all White countries they infest, so naturally the police will be have to arrest more of them. If they don’t like White countries then please, go back to your black shitholes. Otherwise, shut up.

  12. BLM: “No Free Lunch, No Peace!”

    Video Link

    •�Replies: @William Gruff
  13. Robertson says:

    I have a win-win solution that Leftists should celebrate for this matter:
    Irreversibly intolerant racist Britan should deport its uber-talented, backbone-of-society-and-economy discriminated-against black population to Israel, who will be immediately enriched by their outstanding awesomeness while England gets is just deserts and reverts to being boring Ol’Blighty of yore, like it was in the 1960s. I mean who’d wanna live there amIrite?

    •�LOL: Bro43rd
  14. Dumbo says:

    Look at the picture. As usual, it’s always mostly women protesting for the niggas. And a few white simps thinking they will score.

    •�Agree: anonymouseperson
    •�Replies: @Cool Daddy Jimbo
    , @Lurker
  15. anon[337] •�Disclaimer says:
    @PhilMuhCrevis

    there are far too many ignorant assed, guilt consumed Whites that are convinced that nothing this sub human species does is their fault

    And it will continue to be their fault as long as they remain

    ignorant assed, guilt consumed Whites

    ?

    •�Replies: @bike-anarkist
  16. One thing the author fails to mention and which has great bearing on new Woke policing is the change in recruitment practice.

    In Elder Days Before The Fall, all police had to start at the bottom – as a probationary constable on the beat – and work their way up the ranks. So senior officers would all have put in time at the coal-face and would have a realistic view of crime and criminals.

    I know an ex-copper from a very liberal family, who policed in London for decades. Despite his gut liberalism, he’s under no illusions about who commits what kind of crime.

    This route is actually being abolished!

    Nowadays there are fast-track entry schemes for graduates and people with “professional policing diplomas” – from uni courses run by criminologists. These will get you off the beat or patrol and into an office in record time.

    https://www.joiningthepolice.co.uk/application-process/ways-in-to-policing

    “The Traditional Entry route, IPLDP, is being phased out, but some forces will offer it until it is discontinued on 31 March 2024.”

  17. Every person, every animal, has the right of self defense. Policing has effectively removed the right of self defense from the average person, leaving the aristocracy of the country, the political class and super wealthy protected by private security, and the police and military that are allowed to carry weaponry as the exceptions.

    No law may take away my natural right, especially of self defense, and is why I carried an illegal weapon for over 30 years in New York City and the DFW metroplex before leaving the US. I didn’t ask anyone for permission to carry because it was my natural right. Having been shot and stabbed in New York while going to high school I placed emphasis on my life versus the bullshit law.

    The solution to this crime problem, especially with the vicious and stupid blacks, is to get rid of the obstacle preventing you from exercising your natural right of self defense, the useless street cop. They cannot possibly protect anyone but themselves because they aren’t next to you when some POS decides to make you his victim. Give the funds misspent on their salary and benefits to more forensics people, detectives and others that research crimes after the useless street cop didn’t prevent them.

    Once street cops are gone, the average person will demand their natural right of self defense and tell the legislators to go fuck themselves while packing a pistol to punctuate the point. This renewed realization of self worth and power in the average person will immediately rearrange the power dynamic between gov’t and the people. It is this dynamic that was the original reason to institute a street cops system to place the citizenry below the political class, unarmed and fearful. That dynamic needs to be reversed to reproduce the natural order of things where gov’t is the servant of the people and not the other way around.

    •�Agree: anarchyst
    •�Replies: @El_Kabong
    , @anarchyst
  18. Wielgus says:

    The Wayne Couzens murder of Sarah Everard actually was a bad business.
    Another aspect of the case was that Couzens was one of the minority of Metropolitan (ie. Greater London) police with access to firearms. He was a member of the police force tasked with guarding diplomatic premises and shortly before committing rape and murder he had worked a 12-hour shift protecting the US Embassy. Earlier in his career he had been part of the police force responsible for guarding nuclear facilities. You would think such police would be subject to special checks, but if so Couzens slipped through the net.

    •�Replies: @Simon D
  19. Realist says:

    For more than twenty years it has been the settled opinion of the British police that it is society and especially they, the police, who are at fault.

    I doubt the police feel that way. It is the police administration that is foisting this on the police and the populace.

  20. @Dumbo

    And a few white simps thinking they will score.

    Probably not a bad bet. After an hour of marching around and yelling the girls are all angry, sweaty, and thirsty. “Hey honey, let’s pop in here for a drink.” You’d have to listen to a bunch of nonsense, but you could tolerate it if there was a game on TV.

  21. She wants to apologize to all those who have been convicted of crimes that a better system would have overlooked to make itself more proportional.

    More proportional????

    Let’s see………90 percent of all inmates are males…………so if society in general is approximately 50/50 in male to female makeup should we stop arresting males until we get the same 50/50 gender distribution in jail??

    This is the mind of a low IQ foolish person who shouldn’t be allowed to live in a modern 1st world society attempting such feeble logic in defense of her race.

    Put her brain in a pigeon and it will end up flying backwards and forget to eat.

    •�Agree: Automatic Slim
    •�Replies: @Nancy
  22. El_Kabong says:
    @RoatanBill

    Could not agree more and well said. The “law” has become a fetish off sorts. An object of near worship. “Gotta obey the law!” “we’re a nation of laws” etc and so on. The problem is, the law increasingly means nothing. It is not defined by justice, it means whatever they say it means in any given situation and is wielded like a club by those who adjudicate and enforce it. As you said, you have a natural right to your own self defense no matter what the law may say.
    “Ere he shall lose an eye for such a trifle… For doing deeds of nature! I’m ashamed. The law is such an ass.”

    •�Replies: @RoatanBill
  23. Speermann says:

    But where to report tax fraud?

  24. Rich says:

    Here in America less policing of negros results in more negros being murdered, raped, robbed and assaulted. I’m not sure if it’s the same in the UK. Whites in America, even those who spout “woke” nonsense, always move as far from black as possible. Any black who makes enough money, moves as far away from his people as possible. I can’t understand the mental disease that has infected Whites that makes a large minority of them buy into this insanity, but some actually do. Many are just con artists using the scam to make a dollar, but there are really true believers out there. It’s a brain disease that under our present medical establishment, can’t be cured. Like lead in Roman pipes, maybe it leads to our downfall.

    •�Agree: Davy Crockit
    •�Replies: @Davy Crockit
  25. @Colin Wright

    “About half of all young black men are criminals.”

    Just like half of all Jews are crooks.

    •�Replies: @kiwk
  26. @El_Kabong

    Your use of the word ‘fetish’ with regard to the law never occurred to me, but it is the perfect word to describe the average person’s attitude toward it. Thank you.

    Few ever think about how laws are made and by whom. It’s the political class that invents ‘laws’ out of nothing and demand the peons obey them. I have no respect for laws because I understand them to be the edicts of a criminal class intent on punishing the average person for just living.

    It is the ‘law’ that redefines theft as ‘taxes’ where I have no say in how much and for what I must pay; a more honest term would be extortion. It identifies ‘fees’ for doing nothing as just another form of theft for granting me a ‘license’ to drive, own a business, etc; manufactured requirements to gouge the public and restrict their natural rights. The law even tried to get me to murder the Vietnamese by using the euphemism of ‘selective service’ or ‘the draft’ to enslave me for a time, but I refused.

    The ‘laws’ are just a mechanism to make political criminality ‘legal’. The few instances where the law aligns with common sense and natural law as in the prohibition to not harm another person or his property is completely ignored by the legal establishment when they declare a war and then have their morons in costume murder the other mafia’s morons in costume while great numbers of civilians are killed or injured and their property destroyed as ‘collateral damage’.

    That the average person feels some moral obligation to obey laws is a huge problem and is why the public is in the current situation. For the most part, the public should reject all laws contrary to common sense and the golden rule and instead turn the tables on the cretins in gov’t and get rid of those parasites.

    •�Replies: @El_Kabong
  27. Dumbo says:

    I think the plan is actually to promote more police, and not less.

    To create the needed justification for a global police state:

    1) bring millions of blacks and browns to formerly white countries
    2) rile them up with constant news about blacks being shot by the police or “institutional racism”
    3) also rile up the muslims in Europe, by burning Korans or banning their clothing
    4) promote “defund the police” memes
    5) change laws to let black and brown criminals shoplift, rampage, rape bitches and go free
    6) all this is attributed to the “defund the police” ideas, people panic, want more police
    7) police is brought back in spades, armed to the tilt with all kinds of heavy weapons
    8) police is used mostly against protesters, maskless people and “white supremacists”
    9) black and brown criminals continue to commit crime
    10) rise and repeat
    11) create a global police state
    12) PROFIT!

    •�Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  28. Simon D says:
    @Wielgus

    The meshes are pretty big if you ask me.

    The British police in 1973 were regarded with some respect. In 2023 they are derided and reviled. Commenters on tabloid websites openly ask why they are being expected to pay for a service they don’t receive.

  29. “Chief Constable Sarah Crew” Just another stupid White woman who loves the Negro. Spewing BS with every sentence.

  30. @Reg Cæsar

    “It’s been suggested that black Americans top even the Kurds as the world’s largest ethnic group without a nation-state of its own”

    If the American Negro had his own state it would be the most populous state in the union. Currently there are about 45 million Negro in the USA. This Negro state would be more populous than California with itz population of 39 million.

    Hell the 45 million negro would be more populous than most of the European nations by far.

    There are another 1.2 billion of them waiting to get into Europe and USA.

    I don’t even want to bring up the negro populations south of our border.

  31. Panadechi says:

    The future of london, white flight..

    Video Link

    •�Thanks: William Gruff
    •�Replies: @spacewonderer
    , @anarchyst
  32. London is no longer a British City.

    •�Agree: William Gruff
    •�Replies: @anonymouseperson
  33. @Dumbo

    How?

    If there is no production, there is no profit.

    •�Agree: Speermann
    •�Replies: @Hang All Text Drivers
  34. @Panadechi

    It’s bad enough that the negro can’t create or build anything, but it would be nice if they could at least appreciate and maintain what whitey has made for him. God, I would be a nervous wreck living in that neighborhood.

    Sounds like the guy making the vid was a negro himself. I seriously wonder what would have happened to a white dude slowly driving those same streets and filming with all those homies just hanging out bored.

  35. This whole black problem in Britain could have been avoided so easily. No country in the world shows the folly of black immigration like the United Kingdom does.

    •�Agree: William Gruff
  36. @Broken Arrow

    Sad but true. 2,000 years of history wiped out.

  37. Repetitio est mater studiorum

    That is the justification for the protests. They are done repeatedly because they teach the citizens of any particular country what is true.

    If it wasn’t working, they would be stopped.

  38. Nancy says:
    @Critical Thinking

    Proportional! PROPORTIONAL!!! even American citizens (lesser IQ, dontcha know) can see how utterly stupid this is, if only someone with the guts (Elon?) would stand up and say it… oops, it would have to be a black person… maybe Vivek will say to get elected using your brilliant male-female ratio (and backpedal, of course).

  39. anarchyst says:
    @Panadechi

    That being said…due to my personal experiences with feral simian blacks…

    My “redpilled” awakening about blacks occurred at an early age. From day one, when I first encountered “them”, I could tell that they were “different”, both in temperament and ability.

    Coming of age in the days of “civil-rights (for some)” I observed for myself the “double standard” which existed at the time. In school, feral blacks were treated deferentially, quite often not being punished as severely or at all, for infractions and behavior that a white person would be sanctioned severely for.

    [MORE]

    You see, it was not blacks who were “oppressed”, it was us whites.

    In fact, Detroit’s public high schools had “black students unions” that were successful in getting the American flag removed from the front of the schools and replacing them with “black nationalist” flags.

    The ordeal that us white students had to go through was harrowing, to say the least. White students did not use the restrooms, as a “beatdown” by multiple blacks was usually the result.

    Blacks never fought one-on-one, the simian “pack mentality” was evident then as is today. They would jump around, hooting and hollering just like feral simians while attacking their white “victim”.

    Any attempts by whites to defend themselves was met with indifference, and even outright hostility from the black school officials. You see, even then, blacks were not “responsible” for their behavior.

    Blacks did not want to learn, the same situation that still exists today. Even then, blacks were disruptive. You see, just as is the case today, excelling at education is “acting white” and is frowned upon by fellow black “students”. Most of the teachers just shrugged their shoulders, let the disruptions go on until the next class period.

    Almost all teachers were deferential to blacks, although there were a few good teachers who tried to carefully shield their White and Asian students (us) from predatory blacks, giving us additional attention and coursework, knowing that we would excel in spite of the, violent, raucous atmosphere.

    From an early age, one had to be aware of one’s surroundings, especially when the neighborhoods were “changing”.

    Two blacks riding one bicycle (one pedaling and the other on the handlebars) were trouble. If you had a bicycle, the “rider” would jump off and knock you off your bicycle and steal it. You would never see it again. Reporting the theft to police was useless, as even in those days, blacks were “oppressed” and could do no wrong.

    In more recent years (still decades past from today) I still don’t want the “nice black guy” or “nice black couple” in my neighborhood. They might be “nice” but their “hoodrat” relatives are another story. Blacks, even the “good” ones all have criminal “hoodrat” relatives.

    I lived in Detroit and had what I considered to be “good” neighbors. Initially, we helped each other from time-to-time, looked out for one another, had relatively friendly relations and in general, got along well.

    The “troubles” started when my “good neighbors” invited their “ghetto rat” relatives to their parties.

    I restored an old car to near showroom condition and parked it in my driveway. The “ghetto rats” decided that my car would be a good place to sit (on the hood).

    Asking them to remove themselves was met with responses of “f#ck you white m’fer” and other derogatory responses. Upon discussing the situation with my “good neighbor”, he pretty much told me that “boys will be boys” and to “get over it”.

    My friendly relations with that neighbor cooled, as he was not willing to straighten out his “ghetto rat” relatives. Soon after, these “ghetto rats” found new avenues in which to ply their criminal “stock in trade” in our neighborhood- breaking into cars and ransacking houses–easy (white) targets…

    Soon after, I moved to an all-white enclave after that, giving up on the city of Detroit, the criminality, harassment, and civic abuse, and have never been happier.

    This is why it’s perfectly legitimate for whites to not want the “nice black couple” to move into their neighborhood and is most certainly a legitimate concern…

    Diane Fossey or Jane Goodall did not have to go to Africa to study simian behavior. They could have studied such behavior in any major black urban area. Of course, they would have to be armed.

    I stand by my statements. I am PROUD to be considered “racist” and wear my “racism” as a “badge of honor”.

    •�Thanks: Sarah
  40. @loner feral cat

    It is always amusing to see the lengths to which Americans will go to excuse the crimes of their police officers.

    •�Replies: @kiwk
  41. Anonymous[372] •�Disclaimer says:

    Christ !

    This is THEE greatest article I’ve ever read concerning wormy White hypocrisy.

    Great job guy.

  42. @Colin Wright

    Death penalty for acid throwers!
    London used to be one of the most safest cities in the world… How did they go so wrong?

  43. AKINDLE says:

    When will stupid Whites quit marching for their Chimpanzees…when they are all dead.

  44. anarchyst says:
    @RoatanBill

    You are correct.
    Police departments were instituted to protect the political class from the “rest of us”, especially in cities where police chiefs are political appointees who are beholden to the political class-not the citizenry. In Detroit and probably in other urban areas police chiefs and other political appointees are required to submit signed, undated letters of resignation upon appointment. All the mayor has to do is to insert a date, and the appointee is gone without recourse.
    This is in contrast to county sheriffs who are elected, not appointed and are politically accountable to the citizenry.
    That being said, police HATE the idea of the citizenry being on the same level as “them”, being able to defend themselves.
    Add “qualified immunity” to the mix and police officers have a ready-made “get out of jail free” card which allows them to operate with total impunity, following the laws be damned.
    Let’s look at the differences between the way an honest law-abiding citizen and a police officer is treated after a self-defense situation:
    The law-abiding citizen who uses lethal force will be arrested and be taken to the police station until the situation is sorted out. He will be required to retain legal counsel on his own. In the meantime, police officers will question him harshly and relentlessly in an attempt to “trip him up” in order to attempt to gain a conviction. He will not be given time to compose his thoughts.
    The police officer who uses lethal force (in an identical situation) will not be handcuffed or taken to the police station. He will be given a taxpayer-paid “vacation” and will be afforded a union-paid attorney at no cost to himself. He will be given 72 hours in which to “get his story straight”. He will not be badgered or “tricked” into providing inconsistent answers. The “thin blue line” protects its own…
    In many areas of the country, the “deck is stacked” against the law-abiding citizen who is forced to use lethal force to defend his life.
    This is important!
    If you are involved in a self-defense situation and are being detained by police DEMAND TO BE TAKEN TO A HOSPITAL.
    The stress that you have undergone is a valid excuse. You will most likely have chest pains from the stress. Even if you do not have chest pains, you are still under stress and will require medical evaluation.
    This will limit the questioning that police will attempt to make.
    This one move will “get them off your back” for a while and allow you to compose your thoughts. Lawyer up…
    Keep in mind that after a self-defense situation involving police officers, they get 72 hours in which to “formulate” their story unlike us ordinary citizens who will be questioned immediately after being detained. The same standard that police enjoy should be the case for us non-police citizens, but unfortunately it is not.
    Don’t forget that police are not your “friend” and will attempt to “trip you up”, getting you to make contradictory statements, especially in today’s anti-white atmosphere.

    •�Agree: RoatanBill, H. L. M
    •�Thanks: Davy Crockit
    •�Replies: @Davy Crockit
  45. Priss Factor says: •�Website

  46. Both thomas jefferson and abraham lincoln said blacks and whites cannot live together.

    Speaking of racial murders, let’s not forget about the black cop michael byrd who killed unarmed ashli babbitt at j6 and was never prosecuted and 8 months later went on tv and bragged about what he did.

    Black will always hate whites because we’re successful and they aren’t.

  47. @Bardon Kaldian

    “””If there is no production, there is no profit.”””
    —————————————————————-

    Not if you’re a welfare queen.

    •�Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  48. kiwk says:
    @Aleatorius

    More than that even.

    If you take into account the way blacks cover for blacks, like the way they avoid calling police on their own, then many, many more are criminals.

    They commit criminal conspiracy to keep criminals free, but you won’t see Fanni Willis doing anything about it.

  49. kiwk says:
    @William Gruff

    Yes, if only whitey would let the blacks do whatever they please, all would be peaceful.

    •�Troll: William Gruff
    •�Replies: @William Gruff
  50. @anarchyst

    A very interesting and informative comment.

  51. @Rich

    People wake up when the truth gets shouted at them. People will consider your opinion as rude and political-incorect… But they can’t deny (to themselves) the basic truth of them. Reminding them of how much money they have to spend to stay away from nigger trouble is always a good way to rub some salt in.

  52. Lurker says:
    @Dumbo

    Similar to ‘Pride’ parades. A ton of gays, trannies and lesbians plus a good dose of dumb white, straight women. But very few straight white men. And of course essentially no non-white straight men or women.

  53. @Hang All Text Drivers

    You cannot be on welfare if there are no goods produced by working & creative classes.

  54. El_Kabong says:
    @RoatanBill

    Absolutely agree and well said.

  55. Ihr Btitish “Police?” are as “useful?” as a chronically-constipated catamite.

  56. artichoke says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    We tried to give them Liberia but they insisted on remaining here without a nation-state of their own. Been there, done that.

  57. @kiwk

    What has that gristle-brained drivel to do with my observation?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


Remember My InformationWhy?
Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Richard Knight Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement