White student stabbed in racist attack. Police refuse to call it a racist attack.

This seems like pure ignorance.
I pride myself, as a white person, that I am able to live in such a multicultural country. Yes I understand that there are issues between the races but for such a bold statement as 'Islam has no place in the UK' is the sort of things that ignite such racial abusive behaviours.

Islam is simply a religion, so do Jews, Hindus etc therefore have no place in the UK as well then?

Yet another example of someone exploiting a disgusting crime to support their xenophobic attitudes towards society. The problem here is the fact that a boy was stabbed, not that there's some kind of "cover up" by the "police of political correctness" that you've no doubt convinced yourself runs this country.

Yet another example of someone exploiting a disgusting crime to support their xenophobic attitudes towards society.

The problem here is the fact that a boy was stabbed, not that there's some kind of "cover up" by the "police of political correctness" that you've no doubt convinced yourself runs this country.

This is a good point. I think it's because white people have no legitimate anti-racism groups on their side -- which is outrageous considering how many human rights and anti-racism organisations there are.

The only people speaking out at the moment are extremist groups. Which puts a lot of white people off from getting involved.

The power structure clearly is not on white peoples side, so i suppose its up to white people themselves to organise their own anti-racist, anti-violence movements.

Yet another example of someone exploiting a disgusting crime to support their xenophobic attitudes towards society. The problem here is the fact that a boy was stabbed, not that there's some kind of "cover up" by the "police of political correctness" that you've no doubt convinced yourself runs this country.

Today, The Guardian wrote an article on how UKIP (and its supporters) are capitalising on the Rotherham sex scandal to gain votes and popularity from people looking for scapegoats. You fit this description perfectly. You are making up a problem.

I wouldn't tell anyone they're being racist for only focussing on a particular type of prejudice - that's not racism, and I'm not calling you racist (on the basis of this anyway). However, contrary to racism against black people and Islamophobia, racism against white people is an incredibly marginal problem. It's not the large scale issue you're pretending it is.

Better to maintain the lie that mass immigration and multiculturalism are a blessing for this country.

Whites, being the majority in Britain are just going to be more likely to be a victim of any crime. That's just a matter of fact.

I am not going to deny that there are racist incidents against white people but they are vastly outnumbered - to a ridiculous extent - by racist incidents by white British people against people of other nationalities.

I am not going to deny that there are racist incidents against white people but they are vastly outnumbered - to a ridiculous extent - by racist incidents by white British people against people of other nationalities.

Not really... if you have fewer ethnic minorities than white people technically speaking it's easier for those ethnic minorities to be more likely to be the victim of an attack.

Say for example you have a population of 100 with only 20% being ethnic minorities. 1 person from each group is a victim of racism. That mean a white person has a 1 in 80 chance of being a victim while an ethnic minority has a 1 in 20 chance, basically being 4 times more likely of being a victim.

Looking at reality around 87,000 ethnic minorities suffer racist crimes, with around 49,000 being violent with 4,00 being wounded. However white people suffered 92,000 but with 77,000 being violent crimes while 20,000 were wounded.

It's weird, statistically, yes an ethnic minority is more likely to suffer racism, but they're also statistically more likely to engage in racist behaviour against white people.

Basically a lower proportion of white people are racist, if it was even the same you would see a much higher rate of racist crimes against ethnic minorities.

What seems more likely to me is that most racist crimes happen in places where there's a close balance between the numbers of different races, or else substantial areas dominated by one race close by other such areas dominated by other races.

To commit a racist crime people need to feel that they have somewhere safe to retreat to, but they also need an available victim. Whites don't commit much racist crime in white areas because there aren't many non-whites to attack, and non-whites don't commit much racist crime in white areas because they cannot flee into a community of sympathisers who will protect them. There are a few such areas that are equivalent for non-whites, e.g. Tower Hamlets.

So racist crime probably occurs in a few 'battleground areas' where whites and non-whites are roughly evenly distributed. This would explain a roughly equal number of offences in your statistics, although not the disproportionate amount and level of violence used by non-whites.

Not really... if you have fewer ethnic minorities than white people technically speaking it's easier for those ethnic minorities to be more likely to be the victim of an attack.

Say for example you have a population of 100 with only 20% being ethnic minorities. 1 person from each group is a victim of racism. That mean a white person has a 1 in 80 chance of being a victim while an ethnic minority has a 1 in 20 chance, basically being 4 times more likely of being a victim.

Looking at reality around 87,000 ethnic minorities suffer racist crimes, with around 49,000 being violent with 4,00 being wounded. However white people suffered 92,000 but with 77,000 being violent crimes while 20,000 were wounded.

It's weird, statistically, yes an ethnic minority is more likely to suffer racism, but they're also statistically more likely to engage in racist behaviour against white people.

Basically a lower proportion of white people are racist,

Problem in that theory compared to common belief white people are more racist, there would be more racist crimes committed by white people.

Also your theory of people needing somewhere safe to retreat to contradicts your first paragraph, that would result in more crimes in white dominated area's.

Tbh no in depth study regarding racism or even theoretical model concerning racism has been made, apart from theories concerning london, but that's londoncentricity for you.

You be interesting to see racist crime rate of somewhere like london or leicester compared to a white dominated city or town.

Fine, you won't get much disagreement from me here. I think people are intrinsically all about as racist as one another, while there is much more social pressure on whites not to express racism than on non-whites. On the other hand, historically most non-whites have lived in white-dominated areas; this is changing however.

It would reduce the cost to whites of committing racist crimes, yes. However it would not increase the availability of victims. We would not expect to see the most racist crimes in rural Cornwall simply because there is hardly anyone there to victimise! They are two counter-acting mechanisms that, I propose, tend to result in most racist crime occurring in the most diverse areas.

It is also possible that the police should be regarded more as a white institution than a non-white one, if they are not able to operate as effectively in non-white areas, which in this model means that whites are much less safe fleeing into their community after committing racist crimes than non-whites. This might explain an imbalance in victimisation.

London is probably a reasonable model, since it's a majority minority city. If immigration is not stopped then London is what the whole country will become. One thing that is striking is that London is quite a lot like an American city in terms of the extremities of its wealth and success, and its criminal no-go ghettos. Perhaps there are more studies in America.

No doubt much lower, but again, what is the key factor? Fewer non-whites to commit racist crimes, or fewer non-whites for whites to attack?

From my own limited reading the key problem in interpreting all racial victimisation studies is normalisation: different normalisations can show almost any trend you want. I've never seen a study that normalises based on the relative availability of victims and safety of attackers, possibly because it's very difficult to do.

Why do the British media refer to Middle Easternes as "Asians"'? It is misleading.

They are generally ignorant of where people are from and their differences, this goes for the general British population. I find the opposite true in mainland Europe. Never been confused for anything but what I am, Indian (besides British citizen) in European countries.

Posted from TSR Mobile