Eeek! It’s the invasion of the non-white-British mums!
Today's Mail editorial attempts to head off criticism at the pass:
(thanks to ArmyofDave for the photo.) But if the Mail is so certain about its attitude and the righteousness of its argument - as well as the 'sanctimoniousness' of anyone ever daring to call racism racism - then you have to wonder why they have heavily edited the story on which the editorial was based.
The story you can see on their website now is bad enough. But it's chickenfeed compared with what was originally up there. I saw the original last night and noticed it had been changed this morning. But how to find it...? I knew of one place where the story would certainly have been appreciated - the ultranationalist/racist Stormfront messageboard.
I don't like delving into Stormfront very often - it's like plunging headfirst into a torrent of human waste, and you feel that if you spend more than fifteen minutes there you might catch racism or something - but it needed to be done, on this occasion. Sure enough, there it was. Of course it was. Alongside truly enlightening and delightful discussions about 'polluted bloodline' mixed-race Barbie dolls ("Use them for target practice") is the Mail's story, as it was, before they decided to change it. The original headline was along the lines of "THE MATERNITY UNITS WHERE ONLY ONE IN TEN MOTHERS IS WHITE BRITISH' and the story went like this:
New statistics taken from NHS records of women who have just given birth show that white Britons now account for an average of just six in ten of those receiving maternity care.
They also reveal the startling changes that a decade of record migration is having on different parts of the country.In some inner city areas the proportion of white British mothers slumps to fewer than one in ten.
But the impact on parts of Middle England is even more staggering. NHS trusts which cover parts of the home counties - such as St Albans - report less than six in ten mothers are white British.
The figures will reignite the debate about the scale of immigration and the scale of social division, as well as the impact on public services.
One of the reasons why it's so vitally important for newspapers, as trusted news sources, to get their stories about contentious issues right is because of the way in which they're hoovered up by people like Stormfront, the EDL the BNP and other 'patriot' organisations. There is (or should be) an extra onus on reporters to ensure that what they're saying is accurate first time out. But is it accurate, or is it misleading? Well, the revised story certainly changes the tone:
Just one in ten babies is born to a white British mother in some parts of the country, figures reveal.
The statistics - based on NHS monitoring of the ethnicity and nationality of patients - show a sharp contrast in the backgrounds of new mothers in urban and rural areas.
While white British mothers accounted for just 9.4 per cent of all births in one London health trust, the figure was 97.4 per cent of all births in Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust.
The birth statistics reflect how mothers described themselves, not the ethnicity of the fathers or the babies.
It's good to see that the story has been revised and its tone is now a lot less shrill. But the online Daily Mail is only part of the story - it's the original version of the story (with the question about 'reigniting the debate about immigration' and the accompanying editorial about 'unfettered immigration' and 'an urban Britain dominated by ethnic minorities'*) that appeared in the newspaper, and which was read over the breakfast table. So did the Mail think the original story was a bit wrong? Was it a free hit? Do they think its tone was a bit amiss? Is the more up-to-date story more accurate? Will they update their newspaper readers with today's story? We don't know.
As to the accuracy or otherwise of the original or revised stories, I'll leave it to others. But I will point out this section, which still remains in the revised version:
Across England 62 per cent of all births last year involved a white British mother.
The largest other single ethnic groups were 'other white' - including Eastern Europeans - which made up 7 per cent of births, black (5 per cent), Pakistani (4 per cent) and Indian (3 per cent).
Of the rest of the mothers 8 per cent described their ethnicity as 'other' (including mixed-race women) and the remainder were listed as 'not known'.
There's a whole 11 per cent of 'not known' there, which could be anything - people who don't like ticking boxes, people who've got better things to do when they're about to bring another life into the world than fill in diversity forms that are going to be manipulated by people arguing against immigration, and so on. I wonder if 'other white' includes Irish, as I would have thought that would have been one of the biggest categories - in all the box-ticking exercises I've ever done, there's a 'white British' box and a 'white Irish' box as well as a 'white other'. But again it's a question of the Mail looking for it's "New Labour's unfettered immigration evil" agenda - by saying that 'other white' includes 'Eastern Europeans', it's trying to make a fairly obvious point. But what percentage of 'other white' are these Eastern Europeans? It's not mentioned. For all we know, it might be 0.001 per cent. Sure, they're 'included' but are they significant, compared to white people from the USA, Australia, etc?
But who cares about 'white British' anyway? White British are not better British than black British or Asian British or mixed-race British or 'other whites', surely? I find something rather sinister about the idea that we should be fixated on 'white British' as the marker of something significant - it's verging on 'indigenous population' territory, and all the unpleasantness therein. There's that dirty thread running through the whole story - more obvious in the original version, the one that appeared in the print edition, but still there even now.
The Mail says you're sanctimonious if you say it's racist to question whether this kind of ethnic diversity is a good thing or not. Perhaps not racist to ask the question. It is, however, wrong to imagine that 'white British' is a better kind of British than any other British, though, and it's very clearly misleading to imply that New Labour's government was responsible for all the ethnic diversity that we see in Britain today - these figures aren't compared with any others from another time period, yet are still used in the editorial as proof somehow that it's all Labour's fault. It's not out-and-out racism to complain about the 'impact of immigration on Middle England', but it's not a million miles away either.
So a lot of mums are not 'white British'. So what? Would it be better if they were? I don't think so. The Mail might not like to think it's being racist, but the folk at Stormfront latch on to this kind of story straight away. As I said, that makes it doubly important for the journalists responsible to ensure they've got their facts right, that they're not being misleading and that they're not going to provide ammunition for the ultranationalists and the racists. I wonder if they can, hand on heart, really say that's the case.
* You may well ask how a 'minority' can be a 'minority' when it's 'dominating'.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maeva on Tarts and hookers
- Merrick on Workbrain
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:06
That editorial makes me feel physically sick. It isn’t even dog-whistle stuff. The dismissal of the likes of myself, or you, or anyone else that dare accuse them of racism as”sanctimonious” is breath taking in its audacity.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:14
Good post.
I’d just point out one minor thing about whether a minority really can be a minority when it’s “dominating”: of course you can have a dominant minority – Apartheid South Africa, anyone? Sunni-dominated Ba’athist Iraq? Brits in Ireland?
Not that this is anything like that.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:38
Definitionally they couldn’t be a minority; “marginalised majority” might work better?
Although I would be vaguely concerned that chest-thumping HYS types might adopt such a phrase as an armchair battlecry to articulate how they’re being “excluded” by “broken Britain”…
August 9th, 2010 - 10:33
As far as I’m concerned, if you are legally a British citizen then you are British, regardless of where you were born or even where your parents were born. This obsession with your ethnic background is frankly absurd. By that logic we’re all from Africa if you want to be really bloody picky. This is why I never tick any of the “what ethnicity are you” boxes. It’s no-one’s damn business.
August 15th, 2010 - 04:10
It’s not quite that absurd. I used to work in admin for the NHS in a pathology lab, and the reason for questions on your ethnicity is because some medical diagnoses can’t be effectively carried out without some knowledge of the patient’s ethnicity.
For instance (this is the example I was given when I asked my boss why ethnicity was so important), sickle cell disease is far, far, far more common in people of sub-Saharan African descent (more recent descent than the initial exodus out of Africa, of course) than it is in everyone else. As a result, blood samples sent in for pre-natal testing should always be marked if the mother is from that ethnic group, because without that knowledge it’d look as if her sickle cell count was off the chart, and that of course could affect the pre-natal care she ends up being prescribed.
That’s only one example, but I hope it helps you to see that where the NHS in concerned at least, ethnicity actually can genuinely be quite important.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:36
As a Scot I have never ticked any ‘British’ box, white or otherwise.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:31
As a Scot, I’m aware that it’s possible to be Scottish and British. I left Scotland to get away from tedious “Braveheart” wankers who make yawnsome claims to the contrary.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:42
“So a lot of mums are not ‘white British’. So what? Would it be better if they were? I don’t think so.”
And saying that ISN’T racist? Please. Get off your liberal high horse and take a look at the world today. Of course it would be better. These non-white british mums who are having so many kids are also found to be the ones most likely in poverty or on benefits, the kids grow up to be criminals and Britain will be destroyed.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:55
No, what I said isn’t racist. Whereas what you say is. Hope this helps.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:05
Typical “no, you are” playground tactics. Grow up. If you don’t see where the problem lies, I pity you. There comes a time when you have to look at the bigger picture, not try to stand on the moral high-ground.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:37
But I do see where the problem lies. With racists like you.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:45
I hadn’t realised we should ignore social and economic factors and just look at ethnicity, racist myth and laughable scaremongering.
Now that we’ve framed the discussion correctly, I for one look forward to the disappearance of the white urban population. There will be no more white collar crime and BRITAIN WILL BE DESTROYED.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:08
You look forward to white people disappearing? Just wow.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:39
Why are white people going to disappear?
August 9th, 2010 - 13:22
Because due to changes in the manufacturing process they will become a relic of the past.
Like white dog poo.
August 9th, 2010 - 20:00
Yeah, why do we never see peoper British white dog poo anymore? All I ever step in nowadays is the disgusting brown foreign muck. But the Daily Mail never says anything about that!
August 9th, 2010 - 13:32
Embarrassment at the Daily Mail speaking on “our” behalf?
August 9th, 2010 - 12:57
re: treant/illuminati (i can’t reply directly to your post it seems)
what shaun is doing here is employing a tactic widely known as “taking the piss”. it is generally regarded as being the correct response to comments quite as epically stupid as yours have been thus far.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:07
Ha ha ha! I love you, you’re perfect – can I keep you? I’m building a zoo of mouth-breathing “indigenous” types – in Norfolk, where the in-breeding means you get some truly pure-blooded cases – so that future generations of mixed-race Brits can point and laugh at them through the bars. You’d fit right in.
August 9th, 2010 - 13:36
“If you don’t see where the problem lies, I pity you.”
Problem? The “problem” only exists in the minds of people sufficiently deluded to believe that there is something peculiarly special about the number of people ticking a box marked “white british”, as though “british” ought to mean “white”. i.e: Racists.
You come across as one of those particularly twisted type of racist that is not simply declaring that “british” = “white”, and that anyone that isn’t “white” cannot be wholly “British”, but also insists that anyone who does not support this view – ie. anyone who gives no more of a damn about someone’s skin colour than they do about their eye colour – is somehow “racist” against whites. In other words: you’re an idiot racist.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:33
“These non-white british mums who are having so many kids are also found to be the ones most likely in poverty or on benefits, the kids grow up to be criminals and Britain will be destroyed.”
So, I’m curious, what do you suggest we do with the non-white population of this country? Should they be encouraged not to breed? Should they be sterilised? Or should all non-white people be deported? And if so, where would you have them deported to?
August 10th, 2010 - 12:34
Yup, and what about the non-white British mums whose children grow up to be a whizz at maths and go to Oxbridge, or a Doctor who’ll save your sorry arse when you’re suffering from some dreadful illness, who’ll start a successful business to employ your children, who’ll perhaps not go to university but will be there to wipe your sorry arse when you’re too infirm to do it yourself, who will provide a delicious curry after your 15 pints of lager down the pub, who will run a corner shop that’s still open at 11.30 when you’ve run out of condoms…
August 9th, 2010 - 11:50
Anton’s statement there wasn’t a racist at all. He was saying that is doesn’t matter if your a White British Mum. Niether is better or worse.
That’s not a Liberal Political stance that’s just common sence.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:54
Exactly.
These fools always have to make it about Left and Right, as well. An opposition to racism is independent of political wings.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:07
Glad to see a like minded coment here.
I believe in equality for all : – )
August 9th, 2010 - 11:50
BRITAIN WILL BE DESTROYED! By all these impoverished brown-skinned benefit scroungers who, what? Club all their benefits together to build an orbital zetawatt superlaser and aim it at the country? “You will pay us one billion pounds in additional benefits or we will annihilate you!” Amazing. Someone tell the Daily Mail, they’ll love it.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:51
Erm I’m with Anton on this one buddy. As a brown skinned person born to a ‘white british mother’. Where exactly am I allowed to have my “going to be poor and inevitably criminal” children? You are definitely a racist. Anton definitely isn’t.
August 9th, 2010 - 13:57
“These non-white british mums who are having so many kids are also found to be the ones most likely in poverty or on benefits, the kids grow up to be criminals and Britain will be destroyed.”
Got any evidence to back that up? Actual evidence and not BNP/EDL propoganda, or newspaper articles?
August 9th, 2010 - 14:03
“And saying that ISN’T racist?”
No, it isn’t. Because it’s saying that white people are no better than anyone else.
Saying one race is not better than others isn’t racist.
August 9th, 2010 - 15:13
“These non-white british mums who are having so many kids are also found to be the ones most likely in poverty or on benefits, the kids grow up to be criminals and Britain will be destroyed.”
Britain in “Poor People Have Children” Shock. When did we start granting them licences? Why did no one tell me about this? ANSWER ME!
August 9th, 2010 - 10:47
I wonder, could someone point me to Labour’s deliberate policy of unfettered immigration?
Because I thought they brought in the points-based system, whereby if I hadn’t been born here I wouldn’t be allowed to move here.
August 10th, 2010 - 12:41
I watched (before the election) a programme about immigration staff at some airport. Didn’t mean to watch it, just couldn’t be bothered to find the remote. Anyway, it didn’t appear to me that there was anything like an open door, with unfettered immigration.
My sister’s American husband was questioned for 3-4 hours at Heathrow before they let him in. They’ve been married for 9 years and have lived in India for most of that time (and they never have any problems arriving in India). And he’s white so I can only imagine how much more difficult it would be for a non-white person.
But I suppose that some would say he was delayed for so long because he IS white, and that if he was brown or black, he’d be welcomed in with garlands and a free mobile phone.
You can’t win. Even if the evidence says anything different, racists will continue to be believe what they believe.
Keep at it, Anton.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:48
It’s interesting, isn’t it. Surely if one cared about “immigration”, one would be focused on the people who ticked the boxes marked “not British” rather than the boxes marked “not white”.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:52
*Applause*
August 9th, 2010 - 10:56
The DM is a truly “dangerous” paper ( and I deliberately don’t say ‘news’paper) the sooner the pay-wall goes up the better. p.s. I just love the “motherhood map” insert with the fake blond mum and her white blue eyed baby…..
August 9th, 2010 - 11:04
The Express’s article includes some birth rate figures, so you can see for yourself the invasion: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/192056/Only-one-in-10-mums-are-white-British-in-some-parts-of-the-UK
August 9th, 2010 - 14:04
INvasion? Really?
August 9th, 2010 - 15:21
Once upon a time an invading army used ships, planes, landing craft etc. Apparently technology is so great these days that the army is miniaturised into babies and carried like a pregnancy. Damn those asians are clever.
September 8th, 2010 - 15:21
Trojan pregnant women?
August 9th, 2010 - 15:51
oh well, if the express says it’s true…
August 9th, 2010 - 11:10
Hmm, seems a large amount of people have narrow minded views when it comes to immigration and other races. When you see something that mentions a worrying future (or lack thereof) for white people, you seem to get alarm bells telling you that whoever has told you this is suddenly a raging racist, intent on bringing across the next holocaust for all that threaten us. This is not the case, no matter where your silly narrow minded views lie. You are as much a racist for bringing a racist attitude on the matter, Mr. Blogger.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:38
No.
August 10th, 2010 - 12:43
Clearly, no.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:48
“A worrying future for white people”
What on earth is that supposed to mean? It is not a competition. We don’t “lose” if there are more black people than us.
Most of us do not care about the colour of our own or of other people’s skin. You obviously do and that is a shame.
If you have concerns about immigration, then fine. But if insist on bringing it all back to the colour of people’s skin, don’t cry tears when you’re called a racist.
August 9th, 2010 - 21:08
“What on earth is that supposed to mean? It is not a competition. We don’t “lose” if there are more black people than us.”
Sadly, to their way of thinking, it is a competition. Totally batshit insane, I know.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:54
Dear gulf,
WTF?! just…. my god did you really write that – tell me you read it over to yourself before you posted it?… and you saw nothing in it that was objectionable? or that contradicted your own statements?
August 9th, 2010 - 14:40
Yeah, Anton. By saying you don’t care what race people are, clearly it’s YOU that’s the racist. Bet you didn’t think about that. All people like Gulf are worried about is that in 50 years Britain might have more brown people.
IS IT RACIST TO BE AFRAID OF BROWN PEOPLE?!! Didn’t think so.
August 9th, 2010 - 14:48
*more applause*
What I’d do for a like button…
August 9th, 2010 - 14:49
Is actually just mention it a couple of times and see if it happens. No sexual favours or anything, sorry.
August 9th, 2010 - 15:53
No, it means that saying ‘non white british mums’ are somehow worse than ‘white british mums’ has nothing to do with immigration (both british nationals) and something to do with racism (basing judgement on skin colour)
it’s pretty easy to understand. plus, those stats look a bit suspect to me anyway.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:25
Had my wife and I settled in Britain, our kid would figure in the stats as being born to a white, non-British mother (she’s French). Had I stayed in the UK and married a non-white but British-born woman, I wonder whether the Mail would find that more, or less objectionable.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:27
“The birth statistics reflect how mothers described themselves”
this is a key phrase that the mail have chosen to repeat, whilst ignoring it at the same time.
these tick boxes are about how you self identify, and nothing more. as “thelastnameleft” pointed out, many people will tick the “other” rather than the “british” box because they prefer to identify themselves by their country, rather than the uk as a mass. other people, say, those with parents from anywhere in mainland europe, may be both white, and born here, and yet perfer to tick the “other” box because of their familiy history. some may count themselves as “mixed” when they have one non-white grandparent. of course, this all works in the reverse as well, many who the mail would class as “mixed” prefer to tick the “white british” box, as would many were born abroard, but emigrated here in childhood, or many years ago.
of course, even if you were to take these figures the way the mail have you’re still left with nothing more than a great big “yeah…and?” but you can’t even say that much, these stats are representative of how people (limited to those who want to answer the question at all) choose to think of themselves. you can’t use them to reather the kind’s of conclusions about an areas demographic than the mail have.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:29
(sorry about all the fudged spellings there, some people really need the edit button, and i am one of them)
August 10th, 2010 - 13:48
Absolutely correct – I’m white and British born, but I tick ‘white other’, because my heritage is Irish and Romani.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:30
“But who cares about ‘white British’ anyway? White British are not better British than black British or Asian British or mixed-race British or ‘other whites’, surely? I find something rather sinister about the idea that we should be fixated on ‘white British’ as the marker of something significant – it’s verging on ‘indigenous population’ territory, and all the unpleasantness therein.”
This was my general feeling about the ‘story’. As far as I can see they are saying, essentially, that if you are not white then you aren’t considered British. If it’s not racist then it’s a lot ignorant and rude. I’m sure some of the births are from non Brits but they seem to stick the immigrant tag on at the end, I guess to join the dots of their agenda for the hard of thinking. And then to start rabidly waving the anti New Labour flag. Well that is just ridiculous, as I’m pretty sure immigration has been going on for more than 13 years. There is also the assumption that the greater the ethnic diversity, the greater the social divide but surely writing like this serves only to divide. It’s written as if an asteroid is about to crash into Britain, at break neck speed!
August 9th, 2010 - 11:33
I published a comment on this story saying is anyone able to trace their ancestory back to before the Roman times to prove they were what is defined as’White British’. No surprises I got a ton of Red arrows from the read. I also commented on how the DM hasn’t reported on the story about the Muslim camp in Warwickshire, where a Muslim Dr. is declaring a Fatwa on Extremism in Young Muslims. I said this is probably because it paints Muslim’s in a positive light. I have to Thank you Anton for the link to a much more professional news site through your Twitter feed to alert me to this story.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:37
It’s also worth pointing out that this “research” is based on NHS figures and doesn’t take into account mothers chosing to give birth in private hospitals.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:41
Also interesting is the fact that the original article was written by someone called “Jack Doyle, Home Affairs Correspondent” but in the changed version the writer is just “Jack Doyle”
It seems Dacre may have demoted a journalist for doing exactly what he wanted him to do, a case of doublethink if there ever was one. Maybe I’m reading too much into it.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:44
theanorak hits the nail on the head. People who’s great grandparents were born in this country could still be ticking any number of boxes other than “White British” – what has that got to do with immigration?
Even Winston Churchill’s mother wouldn’t have ticked the ‘White British’ box if such a thing had existed in 1874.
August 9th, 2010 - 11:56
One of the BNP’s battle cries over recent years has been about the possibility, or probability, of Britain becoming a nation of mixed race inhabitants. I think the phrase they used was “coffee coloured”, although i stand to be corrected on this and don’t in any way condone its use. If this were to be the case, who gives an actual fuck? So long as there are sufficient people capable of working, innovating, paying taxes and caring for those of us who will be elderly and infirm in 40 years, what does their skin colour have to do with anything?
August 9th, 2010 - 12:25
your sence of doubt is correct, it wouldn’t work out like that. the bnp seem to confuse the way genetics mix with the way paint does. you’d never get a “coffee coloured” population, however many mixed race families there were, some people would still look white, black, and various degreed between those. (see ref: all those “one white and one black twin” type stories).
of course, you’re spot on with the “who gives an actual fuck?” part.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:15
http://theopinionator.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/08/lone-14-year-old-scottish-boy-beaten-by-muslim-thugs-and-told-youre-the-next-kriss-donald-were-going.html
Kid in Scotland beaten up by a muslim gang for being a non-muslim in a ‘muslim only’ area.
Yeah, I wonder why so many people are worried about the growing numbers of non-whites..
August 9th, 2010 - 12:40
Because they’re racists?
August 9th, 2010 - 12:44
Islam is a faith, not a race.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:47
BNP troll. Fuck off.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:49
You appear to be the same person who posted earlier as ‘Illuminati’. Is there any reason for changing your name?
August 9th, 2010 - 13:00
Sounds like “Illuminati”/”Treant” is in a minority…
August 9th, 2010 - 13:20
See my post above.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:54
You see that? YOU SEE THAT? ONE single case, TWO years ago PROVES that FORRINS WILL KILL US ALL!
Seriously Anton, it’s mentioning Stormfront that’s brought the flood of moronity. They’ll have declared a jihad upon you.
August 9th, 2010 - 12:55
For completeness, how about some links to stories where muslims (or any other “minority” for that matter”) are beaten up by white people for being a minority? Shouldn’t be too hard, you have hundreds of years worth of literature to look through.
One report does not make an epidemic. The very fact you’d quote that shows that you’re not open to discussion on the matter – you’ve made your mind up, and any single article you can find to back to back up your preconception will must likely be treated as gospel.
August 9th, 2010 - 13:34
Muslims don’t just come in “brown” you know, Treant. There are plenty of white British Muslims too.
August 9th, 2010 - 21:11
Don’t confuse him with facts, dude.
August 9th, 2010 - 21:10
GDIAF you pestulant, weeping cock.
August 11th, 2010 - 17:17
…and I was beaten up at school for wearing glasses and being fat.
Your point is what exactly?
Perhaps some children are reared in intolerant households – many are not.
I wonder how you would raise offspring yourself?
August 9th, 2010 - 13:02
This is getting ridiculous. Someone’s skin colour surely has nothing to do with a person’s inherent worth as a fellow human being? Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but no scientist has ever proven a link between the amount of melanin in someone skin and the amount of crimes committed by said person. Grow up, you racists. You’re no the persecuted; you’re the persecutors. You make me ashamed to be British.
August 9th, 2010 - 13:45
I hate the Fail, and it’s brand of “journalism”. Stories like the one discussed here are contributing hugely to the rise in anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant feeling from groups such as the EDL, feeding the fear and bigotry, and massively increasing the chances of violence during one of the EDL’s demos. The EDL are going to Bradford soon, and no doubt the Fail will act surprised if there is violence and disorder on the day, despite their own contribution to it.
Personally, I never tick ethnicity/nationality boxes on forms, firstly because I don’t feel it matters or is relevant in any way, and secondly, because I gain a certain amount of pleasure from sabotaging these meaningless statistics, even if it is only in a small way.
August 10th, 2010 - 12:55
See, that’s another problem with the statistics. If white, British people don’t tick boxes because of similar attitudes to Press Not Sorry, that will skew the results. Not that I’m saying you’re wrong in your attitude you understand, just that it increases the errors in the survey.
If every white Briton refused to tick the boxes will the DM be able to prove that non-whites are in the majority? That’ll be interesting!
August 9th, 2010 - 14:13
Anton, howcome you get all the fun with racist commenters?
August 9th, 2010 - 15:13
you need to namechack people like stormfront more often, or any other group who’s members are as keen on googling themselves as that lot are.
August 9th, 2010 - 14:32
Wonder how long it will be until the DM claim god is an Englishman? They will probably need to check that he was born in North Devon first though.
August 9th, 2010 - 14:52
Why is no one debating the real issue here? Why are we letting a stuffed monkey debate the future of human society?
GO BACK TO STUFFEDMONKEYLAND, STUFFED MONKEY!
August 9th, 2010 - 17:53
The stuffed monkey talks a lot more sense than the Daily Fail, that’s why.
August 10th, 2010 - 12:08
If the real issue that you speak of is immigration then the colour of people’s skin shouldn’t have any bearing on it whatsoever.
You should be denouncing the Daily Mail for poisoning the debate on immigration if you care so much about it.
August 11th, 2010 - 21:45
As the stuffed monkey you talk of appears to have a white face and orange skin (just like the many tanned/burnt Brits returning from summer breaks abroad) I would’ve thought you should be on your hands and knees lapping up every word with typical robot-like conformity?
“debating the real issue here?”
Like you’re interested in debating the truth. Don’t make me laugh. Shit. You already did that.
August 12th, 2010 - 09:52
Do you think many of the comments on this thread have just gone straight over the head of the intended targets?
*cough*
Ah, yes, George, you idiot.
August 9th, 2010 - 15:07
I can’t understand why Illuminati (a very telling choice of moniker by the way) & Co. is so scared of babies.
August 9th, 2010 - 15:29
It never fails to make me laugh when I see or listen to people talking about white people being taken over by brown or ‘dusky-coloured’ people. it never fails to make me laugh because a lot of them have either sprayed their skins to get that all over orange look or have spent so much time in the sun that they are browner than the people they clearly despise.
August 9th, 2010 - 17:49
Shitting shit bag, I missed all the fun!
I was busy hiding behind my sofa – they are coming to get us, run for your life, parents having children, selfish fuckers.
This >> http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/2010/08/08/im-not-an-expert-but-this-is-why-i-dont-buy-newspapers-any-more/
Seems rather appropriate.
We want a firewall, we want a firewall, we want a firewall! Please Pauline Dacre, with a black cherry on top, charge us for your content!
August 9th, 2010 - 18:21
My comment congratulating the Mail on ‘coming out’ and finally admitting they are racist didn’t get published
August 9th, 2010 - 18:43
Hey there. I just discovered your blog last week and spent more time reading up on your past writings than might be strictly sane. A fantastic read, all of it, and I’m very grateful I can savour the fruits of your labours.
Since I spent so much time recently trawling through the archives, I notice that the phrase “most profound change in the British way of life in history” pops up quite often in these articles on immigration, as it does here. At least this time they add the word “recent” to it. Surely even Mail readers can appreciate that current immigration doesn’t have the same impact on society as, say, the Norsemen and the Normans had?
August 9th, 2010 - 19:53
“We don’t want to become a minority! Have you *seen* the way we treat minorities?
August 9th, 2010 - 20:15
Where the Mail’s goal of stoking xenophobic fear comes out most clearly is really in the quite deliberately false assumption that if a mother didn’t tick any ethnicity box they must be from an ethnic minority.
By the way, working in social statistics I know that if you issue a form with a choice of ‘White British’ and ‘White Other’, even in England a good chunk of that group will be English people who refuse to tick a ‘British’ box.
Plus, how about those wealthier mothers using private healthcare?
Trends in births are always a favourite way to stoke xenophobia – newly arrived minorities always have huge birth rates, because when new migrants of any sort arrive anywhere, generally they’re mostly 25 and about to get married… after the initial wave of migration it always drops off, but people like MigrationWatch aren’t about to include that fact in their ‘projections’.
August 10th, 2010 - 13:01
I’d like to know if there’s any increase in family size for recent immigrants. I do sometimes see families with four children or more, but firstly how do I know they are all from the same two parents (and not cousins, next-door-neighbours’ kids) and how do I know they are actually immigrants and not born-and-bred here (yes, I know, for many they will remain immigrants for as long as they’re brown-skinned) or possibly just visiting?
However, round my way the largest families seem to be Hassidic, I wonder if Orthodox Jews are considered white British by the DM?
August 10th, 2010 - 00:01
Due to my job i know allot about how this data is collected and technically White English, White Scottish, White Welsh, White Northern Irish and even White Cornish are sub categories of white other as opposed to White English so the statistics the DM uses are complete bollocks.
August 10th, 2010 - 13:18
Dear Anton,
I think you must have the poor Daily Mail wrong…
I’m sure the comments about “predominantly white British shires” must be a call to create a more equal society where all parts of the country have a full mixture of ethnicities.
I think the Mail should be appluaded for this “cast against type” trumpetting of liberal thought – it will certainly disappoint some of its readers to see the paper campaigning to end “predominantly white British” enclaves.
Love and hugs
August 11th, 2010 - 12:42
OK, I guess I’m sanctimonious then. So be it.
August 15th, 2010 - 16:19
Hi Anton, just thought I’d pitch in a line for Illuminati.
Down here in Plymouth, indeed around 95 percent of the babies born are white.
And strangely enough, the very great majority of the crime committed here is by white people.
Surely Illuminati is using this fact as the basis of his theory… the more white babies, the more white crime and thus the more coloured babies born, the more coloured criminals there are…
And next week, Illuminati will be demonstrating the fiscal policy of the far right using lettered building blocks.
What a twonk!
August 16th, 2010 - 18:20
The trouble with the Mail and Express’s framing of the issue in implicitly racial terms (or explicitly, as in this case) is that it tars the whole debate over immigration.
You’re right, skin colour has fuck all to do with the place of a person in Britain. What really matters is not what colour someone’s skin is, or where they come from, but if they will make Britain a better place for the people who are already living here. That question, which does include questions of cultural background, whether the person speaks English, and so on, is not irrelevant when you’re talking about the mass movement of populations in short spaces of time.
Fortunately, the current points system or some variant of it should be more than sufficient to distinguish between immigrants. But, at least in left-liberal circles (such as I operate in), there is a certain reluctance to even talk about immigration because the tabloids have so associated it with racism. Ultimately, I reckon this backfires on the Right, unless they have some shadowy ulterior motive.