Your propaganda to Indymedia readers is out of order. No need to state the obvious.

 http://www.bnp-chronicle.com/2009/01/israel-and-gaza-by-nick-griffin.html

Is it really BNP policy to send immigrants back where they came from? That means all the Normans back to Normandy so no more Gentry in the UK!

That means Saxons all get crammed into Kent, (because that is what they were diven for fighting the Danes) or shipped back to the Continent.

There is only one problem - How will we feed all the Americans, Australians etc who will be shipped back here when those countries follow suit.

I doubt the poster is trying to convince people on here not to vote for the BNP, but the quotes are useful in showing them up for what they are and helping to convince others. So could be we please have more precise attributions and dates for the ones which just say "Nick Griffin"? Thanks.

I'm not really a fan of "quote mining". It cheap, low and often misleading. Eveb the creationists have managed to "prove" that Darwin believed in god through quote mining. Its child's play and so should remain in the sandpit.

"Your propaganda to Indymedia is out of order. No need to state the obvious."
John

Sorry, John, but there is the need to state the obvious. While the BNP portray themselves as a reasonable, slightly right wing but working class party, there are people who will be fooled. The BNP tell lies. Often big lies. Stormfront Propagandists should be obliged to explain why such quotes are no longer relevant. Some are actually quite recent and relevant. This is the kind of Propaganda the BNP circulate to each other and hide from the voters. It might well be unpleasant to see, but it is entirely reasonable to see it.


"There is only one problem - How will we feed all the Americans, Australians etc that will be shipped back here when those countries follow suit."
Bookfairwr

The logical conclusion of the Stormfront Propagandist position is that the former colonial whites will not be shipped back to live but to be exterminated. The BNP position is that they are the "elect" in the same way as Jim Jones, David Koresh and a host of other cult leaders have been "elect". The BNP Position can not allow immigration or emigration. It is the position of turning the entire island into a huge open prison. The infrastructure is in place and the BNP ideology recognises that.


"You seem to be over-simplifying things by suggesting that a nation is an object with a finite capacity, it is a space which can be populated and enriched. Britain can never over-flow, can just be strengthened by diversity."
Lucy

The Stormfront Propagandist position does simplify things. The Propagandist position is as job applicant for prison guard in the BNP Open Prison Society. For such a jobsworth, the "nation" is finite. Constrained by a failing imagination. Consider a Prison Officer with a simple instruction: "do whatever it takes to keep order" as opposed to a Prison Officer with diverse instructions. That would make the cushy job of prison guard too strenuous. Laziness and arrogance insist that the nation must be tiny.

"It's well known that the chimneys from the gas chambers at Auschwitz are fake, built after the war ended." Nick Griffin (2006 BNP Website - attributed to BBC Interview)

“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat…I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria.” - Nick Griffin (BNP Website 2004 - Attributed to BBC Interview)

"So could we please have more precise attributions and dates for the ones which just say "Nick Griffin"? Thanks."
Stroppyoldgit

The attributions are as precise as the BNP website allows. That is part of the point: the BNP pluck lies out of the air and then utter them.

I have quoted you all out of context. Presumably the lost of a word here and there has not overly changed your opinions. But it is misquotation. So, maybe, you should check. It is the strategy of the BNP to gradually quote people out of context, over and over until they have a soundbite that matches some fascist policy. The policy of telling lies constantly is starting to catch up with them. So, despite the resevations of Max about "quote mining" it would seem relevant to actually start asking the BNP, why did your stated opinion change from one date to another. The truth is that the BNP have told so many lies they can no longer keep up.

What a lot of people seem to miss is that the world is not Indymedia. Quoting fascist propaganda on Indymedia is likely to be challenged. In the ordinary world, these quotes are so rarely heard that they would actually be to shocking to register. The BNP then dismiss the shock as merely "ironic" or "look over there". The BNP are riding the coattails of the major parties and their spin doctors - particularly the Tories. The BNP have spent a decade making themselves appear electable as a minor party through selective use of quotes that can be mined. Examining that strategy demonstrates that the BNP are still the fascist, racist party they were when Griffin took over.


For Max: if it is childs play to see fascists for what they are then teach children to play that game. The fact we did not play that game in the sandpit is part of the reason the BNP portray themselves as being electable. Remember the fascist fourteen words: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children," it is a quote worth mining - it comes from Mein Kampf - it is the policy of the BNP.

To be honest I feel sorry for you Mike, you've obviously been completely brainwashed by BNP fascist propaganda.

Yes, that IS the kind of world i want to live in, not the way you've painted it, but the way it actually is:

'They' (by this I assume you mean anyone who isn't british?) don't take jobs away from British people, there are many more unemployed immigrants than Brits.

'They' don't bring gang warfare, the racists who attack them bring gang warfare, groups of young, usually male minorities form gangs and arm themselves in defence from white gangs already in existance

'They' don't pimp our young girls, the worst cases of prostitution and traffiking are that of young girls brough illegally into this country by British people, not British girls exploited by immigrants. And where did you get your evidence that more rapists are immigrants than British nationals? because i don't think i've ever seen anything to suggest that would be the case.

'They' don't have money thrown at them at all, i'll refer you to the 'still human still here' campaign as they know more than i do:

 http://www.vimeo.com/3775752

also, given our Colonial history don't we have an obligation to people from countries formerly occupied by Britain, and shouldn't we be honoured that Britain is a desirable destination?

While a growing population is stretching social services, workers in the social services are very often people deemed by the BNP as 'unbritish', so i'd like to see the social services cope if all 'non-Brits' were repatriated.

Nobody is demanding we change our culture. British culture is built up of influences from others. British culture is being constantly enriched by others, not detracted from.

I don't know who you're refering to when you say 'their beliefs' and 'their country'... you seem to think anyone non-British comes from the same place, maybe you should have paid more attention in geography?

You have absolutely no grounds to suggest anyone is turning Britian into a '3rd world slum' and the fact that we are able to offer sanctuary to those desperate to avoid their lives in 3rd world slums is surely a good thing.

To suggest that all muslims are fundementalists is completely ridiculous, ill-informed and clearly influenced by mr griffin's propaganda! And while I wouldn't advocate terrorism for a second, but we can't ignore the fact that what has driven many islamists to extremes is their anger for our inexcusable behaviour towards the middle east throughout history.

I hope that may have helped you realise there very little truth in the racist propaganda you've been brainwashed by.

Dear Lucy

I would love to debate the issues with you, but what's the point? The rampant censorship here makes it hardly worthwhile. I do though realise that's the only 'debate' you leftie, supposed upholders of free speech and democracy, can tolerate - free speech when all opinions agree with your own.

The bottom line is that immigration is making Britain a 3rd world cesspit of bland nothingness, a fact that most likely bypasses you due to your having never lived in one of the more 'enriched' parts of the UK. Still, enjoy Communist (or Islamic) Britain should it ever come about.

Roll on June 4th!

>> 'They' don't bring gang warfare, the racists who attack them bring gang warfare, groups of young, usually male minorities form gangs and arm themselves in defence from white gangs already in existance

I completely disagree with that. I think it is political correct but foolish to assume that crime statistics will be exactly equal for all ethic groups. That would be like saying that men win 50% of running races and women win 50% of races.... because men and woman have equal rights.

A clear example is the knife crime was recently highlighted in London. A while back I read that 41 out of 42 of the people caught for major knife crimes in london were from an African Caribbean descent (the other one was turkish). Certain crimes are clearly more prevalent amongst certain ethic groups. Examples: knife crime, suicide bombings, etc. (i'm talking averages here, not specific cases)

It is also interesting that the police no longer public crime demographics that group by ethnic descent (even through it is extremely valuable to do so). But back when they actually did do so, it was clearly shown that per populous, crime was higher in certain ethic groups. The police stopped publishing these statistics as it was being used for ringwing material.

Please do stop talking rubbish. The Information is available. You can even obtain it through a Freedom of Information Request.

Inspector Dave Lockyear
Information Access Manager
Information Management Services

Mr Sonny Bradley
 foi@cityoflondon.pnn.police.uk
 request-1568-473fd3e7@whatdotheyknow.com

Direct line
Direct fax
020 7601 2279
020 7601 2088

Your ref:
Our ref:

26 August 2008

Dear Mr Bradley

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF: COL/08/310

I write in connection with your request for information dated 3 August 2008 in which you
seek access to the following information:

1. How many crimes have occurred in the last decade involving a person(s) being
stabbed?

2. How many crimes have occurred in the last decade involving a person(s) being
fatally stabbed?

3. If possible, could I have a percentage breakdown of the race of the offender(s) - e.g.
40% - white, 15% - black, etc?

Data is only available from 2000 and these statistics therefore relate to the period 1
January 2000 to 31December 2007.

28 stabbings have occurred in the City of London Police force area in this period, of
which 2 resulted in the victim dying. The breakdown of ethnicity of the suspects or
offenders is as follows:

White: 39.3%
Black: 25.0%
Asian: 10.7%
Other: 3.6%
Unknown: 21.4%




Wood Street Police Station
PO Box 36427, 37 Wood Street, London EC2M 2NP
Tel 020 7601 2279 Textphone 020 7601 2906
www.cityoflondon.police.uk



Information debunks BNP Bollocks every time.

I have to say I do agree with you on something... I do think the fact that your comments are being censored is slightly detromental to Indymedia's pro- free speech stance, especially as you are highly unlikely to convert anyone on here to your pathetic cause.

However I think you should probably get your facts right, what I was refering to when I spoke about areas enriched by different cultures i meant metrapolitan centres such as London, which yes I have been to, and yes, I do believe have definately been enhanced by diversity and have been for centuries. I expect most of the things you take to be quinticentially 'london' and thus threatened by your 'alien invasion' are in fact traditions, landmarks etc left by centuries of immigration be it by the Vikings, French Hugenots, Russio/Polish Jews, or more recently by West Indians, Pakistanis and Eastern Europeans. So i'm afraid you've been completely mistaken in thinking immigration has turned Britain into a 'cesspi of 3rd world bland nothingness', without immigration Britain as we know it wouldn't even be here!

I don't want Communist or Islamic Britain, I just want a Britain whereby everyone is accepted including Communists and Muslims.

Stormfront Propagandist,
Your stats undermine your argument. When you take into account the relative population sizes it shows that certain 'races' are more violent in London. That isn't surprising nor is it racist. When you are abused by a society all of your life for superficial reasons then you are more likely to become violent. Economic violence, social apartheid is still violence. That is why Irish people were until recently categorised as violent and less desirable than dogs. When people are raised to believe they are violent subhumans, they become violent. Nurture, not nature is most important here and we don't nurture anyone who isn't rich. This is a class issue not a 'race' issue. Try getting the statistics for crime broken down by income and then you'll see a direct correlation that is worth mentioning.

Lucy,
To the best of my knowledge I only have one foreign ancestor in the past 500 years, a French Huguenot. I don't think that makes me superior, quite the reverse, I'd have a better genetic resistance to illness if I had a more diverse background. I appreciate diversity and would encourage more people from overseas to live where I live, but to be honest I can't recommend it here to them. There is enough space here but the locals are shits.

During the 'good years' I went to work in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The most racism I encountered was in the Netherlands, and it wasn't aimed at me, it was aimed at my north African friends. The justification for that was the Netherlands was the most overcrowded country in Europe at the time, and it really was. It appalled me as an outsider how crowded it was. I loved it's diversity, as a young, rich man it was delightful to walk down the streets and see beautiful middle eastern women, beautiful african women, beautiful asian women next to beautiful nordic women. I hated there was no privacy, no real nature left there except public parks designated as nature reserves. I hated that many of those women were either selling themselves or being sold.

Now England is supposedly the most overcrowded country in Europe. Slovak immigrants there, otherwise incredibly nice people, claim there are too many immigrants there, without irony since they are immigrants. The sustainable population of the UK is 30 million and we are doubling that. In the liberal Netherlands that stupid immigration policy gave rise to an increase in Nazis and a mainstream shift to the right. That is what is happening in the UK just now. Immigration is great for a society, like water is great for a body. Too much uncontrolled immigration too quickly is suicidal, like water is a poison if ingested too quickly. The only people who benefit from that are the landed gentry, the business leaders and the fascists.

My racist slovak friends work here as 'carers', an awful voctional job I would never wish to do. They all have degrees in other fields but earn four times more here than they can in Slovakia in their professions, so they do appalling work for minimum wage. That undercuts the working class here to such a degree that former communists turn to fascism. I think that is a deliberate Ruling Class tactic to erase the benefits that working class people have fought and died for here.

I live in Scotland. Scotland is probably underpopulated, we could easily absorb another few million, but that should be done slowly, gradually, and without forming the sort of racial ghettos we already have. When I read this BNP shit I want to deport every scottish BNP supporter to England, I want to deport the 8% of our population who was born in England back to England. England is probably the most nazi state on earth. I do not want to accept the Scots diaspora back to Scotland. Anyone who emmigrated is not welcome back, I'd far rather accept the people who genuinely chose to live here than the imperialist, racist scum who left.

So, it's a complicated issue. If you want to talk about it here, and if we are allowed, then fair enough. There is a good Scottish phrase though, "same rules apply". What applies to 'foriegners' in England will soon apply to the English abroad. The English empire faded a long time ago and soon you will even loose Wales.

You have been arguing against fascist, racist BNP trolls up 'til now. I see they are still active, which is why you haven't had to argue too in depth.

I am a little unsure as to how "my" statistics undermine my argument.

My point, badly put, was that the statistical evidence for knife crime exists and is accessible. Max claimed these statistic no longer exist. His further claim that 41 of 42 knife crimes were "black" would be about 97.6% of crime. Clearly the analysis of City of London Crime figures might be radically different to elsewhere, but it seems implausible that this difference could exist if 97.6% fall into one statistical set that the City of London Statistics must be a subset of. Quite simply, 28 crimes in one part of London out of 42 in all of London would account for 66% of crimes and so make Maxs claim unsupportable. Perhaps Max feels comfortable with the BNP lie that knife crime is a "black" problem.

The issue of why crime is disproportionately represented among different groups is not simplistically down to immigrants being poor but also to the statistical and analytical methods of reporting. While you point to class as being significant, I would point to age. There seems to be a systematic discrimination against people for being young. Hence, if you are young - regardless of of class - you are more likely to be arrested and appear in statistics for knife crime. True, middle class children will not suffer as much criminalisation as the Poor, but they will inflate some statistics first. Realistically, I would consider social statistics as indicating where to look rather than being the truth.

My argument was that Max was talking tosh: the statistics are available. Detailed analysis is useful. But it is far easier to get to the point: information destroys BNP Bollocks every time.

Stormfront propagandist is crudely attempting to pull the wool over your eyes with his interpretation of statistics from the City of London Police. Any fule kno that this tiny police force only deals with the City/Temple area and their crime statistics would be entirely untypical for the rest of London. How about some figures from the Met covering the whole of Greater London?

StormFront Propagandist,
"I am a little unsure as to how "my" statistics undermine my argument."

You've quoted the total number of a certain crime reported to the police in one area by 'race' without adjusting that for the total population breakdown of 'race' in that area. It gives a false indication of the total number of that one crime. What you've quoted actually reinforces the argument you are intuitively opposing. You shouldn't try to use statistics to prove a point unless you understand statistics. What you have just done, unwittingly, is +prove+ that 'black' people are more violent.

If there were any semi-intelligent fascists here then they would rip you to shreds over that mistake. Luckily there aren't. It's very probable that more 'black' people commit violent crime than most 'white' people. There is a simple reason for that that is nothing to do with genetics. We live in a racist society that makes 'black' people poorer than white people. If you were to examine the figures using a class analyis then you'd see there is no racial difference, that poor white people are just as likely to be violent as any other 'race' and that the real violence in this country is caused by economic class violence. The rich abuse the poor, the poor abuse each other. I've put the term 'race' in quotes because I have much more in common with any poor 'black' than I do with any privileged middle-class person , whether 'white' or 'black'. Race is a racist term.

What confuses me is that people who don't live in strong multi-racial areas, seem to hold a strong opinion that everything is "ok", without having to live within these areas on a day to day basis.

Its not. I used to be a strong supporter of a multicultural society. I also thought: "whats the problem? why are people being racist?". But having lived in some of the areas in manchester than have a high number of asians for the last 10+ years, I have completely turned this opinion on my head. Levenshulme is a hellhole, so in Openshaw. They are generally always on the take, always trying to sell you your leg whilst they are sawing it off. Whalley Range is ok except for the problems around the Mosque. Didsbury - your car get blocked in every single day because Muslims just park across driveways because they are late for prayer. If you ask them to move they swear at you. I'd also fed of of Muslim women walking around my shadow because they think its dirty - this I find particular offensive. I don't like all the progaganda that is put up selling that Britain is evil and Islam is best.

Its not being racist (colour of skin). Its more I just don't like the culture: their attitudes to those around them. Of course I'm being generalist here, but this is what it is like if you live here.

I have sinced an area that is predominately white and, although it is far from perfect, it is much more pleasant. So, why have I changed my opinion from supporting a multi-racial England to thinking that it "just wont work"? Basically, I'm a product of my environment.

Danny,

the detailed use of statistics was never necessary to the argument. The claim was the statistics do not exist. They do. That gets rid of the BNP Bollocks argument.

You are right that the City of London statistics might not have been weighted to ethnic proportions. But, again, that was not the point. If The City of London has 28 of the 42 knife incidents then it is numerically impossible for 41 out of the 42 incidents in the whole of London to have involved black offenders, because more than one offence in the City of London was by a white offender. Hence, the 41/42 statistic fails to be numerically possible. Again the BNP Bollocks argument disappears.

You are actually wasting way too much effort engaging your brain above the level of the usual rank and file Fascist, Racist, BNP Supporter. Had the posting been on Stormfront I could have written: "The statistics exist, muppet. The statistics say five white offenders. where did you go to school you muppet. Stupidstan? Bollocks." Different level of discourse entirely.

Perhaps the number 42 was chosen by someone unaware that Douglas Adams used it as the answer to life the universe and everything. Perhaps it was also chosen by someone unaware of how many Stormfront Posters fake their identity.

I can't remember exactly where i read it, but it was a list of names and a breakdown.

>>> Statistics........ 28 stabbings have occurred in the City of London Police force area

Ok....
Firstly, a big geography error. The info request was with the COL Police. The "City of London" is a very, very, very tiny area. Hence there are only 28 stabbings and not many people live (except if you are loaded). 'm talking abount "Greater London" which is where people actually live and where the stabbing occur that were highlighted in the mainstream media. If you are confused about which is which and the differenct sizes - I've linked a map here:
 http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/citypolice/flash/map.html

Secondly, you seem not understand what the statistics mean.... which is quite common
If we just look at the COL statistics (which has nothing to do with my original point), but still completely proves i'm right:
-- White: 39.3%, Black: 25.0%, Asian: 10.7%, Other: 3.6%, Unknown: 21.4%

If there was equal number of people from each ethnic group, then yes, this would mean a higher percentage of white's commit stabbing when compared to blacks. But they arn't. I refer to good old wikipedia for the 2001 demographic census....  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_London

Ref 2001 census: "71.15% of these seven and a half million people classed their ethnic group as white ...... 10.91% as Black"

So lets convert that to actual numbers of people:
Number of whites = 71.15% of 7,500,000 ==> 5,336,250
Number of blacks = 10.91% of 7,500,000 ==> 818,250

So there are about 6.5 times as many whites as there are blacks. So, if all things equal, you would expect there to be 6.5 times as many stabbings committed by white people as there are blacks. The statitics you provided show that whites only commit 1.6 times as many stabbings as blacks.

Therefore, its pretty easy to see that a black person is statistically more likely to commit a knife crime that a white person in the City of London.

It is a schoolboy error to say "statistics do not exist" when, clearly they do. This was your original point. Claiming 41 of 42 crimes were carried out by blacks and the remaining by a Turk is refuted by 28 crimes where even one crime was carried out by a white person. It is called checking the facts.

As to my ability to understand statistics: you are as naive as you are racist. The use of percentages is a normalising measure which ensures comparisons between populations is possible. This ensures that comparison of City of London to Greater London is statistically correct as it allows comparison of proportional rather than absolute figures and so highlights pattern. The error of renormalising to general population numbers using population estimates is bad practice where the raw data, rather than aggregates, are available. This is the case with Greater London. Justification for concluding anything from those comparisons is not warranted if you can demonstrate the populations are not normally distributed - which you can not be sure for the Wikipedia article cited (even if the raw data comes from the ONS, which I seriously doubt).

The City of London might well be outside the first two standard deviations of London for a lot of things. The City of London is inside the set of raw counts that make up Greater London Crime figures. Your 41 out of 42 statistic is nonsense because 28 counts occur inside City of London. Your claim that crime figures are not available is nonsense. Now your are compounding the nonsense by attempting to work from the particular to the general while at the same time claiming that the particular cannot be generalised.

BNP Bollocks. Big ones.

How about you generalised from the London Crime figures to the National Crime Figures? Suddenly you get a huge overestimate of knife crime. Clearly there are localised clusters of high knife crime. The whole idea that you can make conclusions about that is not plausible. The error - in this case, overestimate of knife crime - makes conclusions suspect to begin with.

Consider the simple argument:

Knife crime statistics do exist
you are too lazy to find knife crime statistics
you claim knife crime statistics do not exist

Conclusion: no racist can find anything that exists.

It is a statistically sound argument: I just generalised from one racist to all racists.

"Therefore, its pretty easy to see that a black person is statistically more likely to commit a knife crime that a white person in the City of London."

lol - owned!!!!!!!!!!!!

But you have to take into account WHY this statistic is. Surely the only reason knife crime is more of a problem in predominantly black areas rather than white is that our rascist society has forced a large percenage of the black minority into under-privilliged 'ghettos', and defensive behaviour is a response to this and to prevaling racist attitudes these people face on a daily basis. If you were constantly descriminated against and treated like scum wouldn't you resort to extremes?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to determine a simple demographic fact. You can't shield the quest for answers because people shout "racist, racist, racist... hands over ears". If we all adopted that attitude we'd still be living in the Christian Dark Ages and thinking that the earth was flat because it was blasphemy to think otherwise. Jeez.... move with times. Arn't you actually a little bit interested to find out? rather than just relying on PC wishful thinking to bias anykind of facts out of the way?

I'm trying to work out what you mean. I'm gathering you think that the COL figures quoted are normalised against the population proportions. I'm sorry but it really isn't that complex.

FIGURES ARE NOT NORMALISED. THEY ARE JUST RAW PERCENTAGES
The FOI is literally just how many out of the 28. You can see this if you worked out the percentages against the "28" stabbings.
39.3% of 28 = 11.004
25% of 28 = 7
10.7% of 28 = 2.996
3.6% of 28 = 1.008
21.4% of 28 = 5.992

Theres slight rounding errors, but its obvious they are whole numbers. The percentages really are just how many out of those 28. No normalising or any corrections against population. Just raw figures.

IN SIMPLE TERMS:
--> Out of the 28 stabbings. 11 were done by whites. 7 were done by blacks.

If (and its a big if), these figures were also representative of Greater London, and considering there are approximately 6.5 times as many whites as there are blacks in London, then those figures are obviously pointing that a black person is more likely to stab someone than a white person.

But it really is hard to find figures that cross reference crime against ethnicity. I have actually looked, im not being lazy. These figures arnt readily available because of the implication it would have. If you do have links, I'd appreciate them.

----- "Your 41 out of 42 statistic is nonsense because 28 counts occur inside City of London."
I don't quite understand what you mean here. The 41/42 figures was a very brief snapshot statistic in the greater london area. It was just saying 41 out of the "last" 42. It was quite a while ago and was looking over a very short period. And it was greater london.

Also, your FOI request statistics was looking over a 7 year period. 28 stabbings in COL in 7 years. There are a lot lot more in Greater London - more like several a week.

btw. I don't support the BNP. I think their policies and especially that leaflet with the fake testimonials was a bit insulting and treated people like idiots. I don't know why I have to even say that -- but you seem to your animonsity cloud your analytical thinking.

Lucy is coming closest to the truth. Stormfront Propagandist, you are arguing on the right side but using weak arguments. I find it especially weak for you to infer I am a Nazi using a pseudonymn just because I criticise your arguments.

I's suggest Glasgow is a better indicator of whether violent crime, especially knife crime, is race related or class related. In the past decade, Glasgow has the lions share of non-white immigration in Scotland. It also has the lions share of stabbings in Scotland. (Forgive the lack of statistics, search for yourself if you doubt me). Superficially that may seem like a correlation between non-white immigration and knife crime, not that correllation equates to causation. However knife crime in Glasgow has decreased significantly over the past decades and centuries when non-white immigration was extremely minimal. The truth is knife crime is closer linked to poverty than to race, and the only reason the fascist trolls here can link it to race is because race is linked to poverty.

Poor people kill each other more. Immigrants are more likely to be poor. It is an argument for social integration, for equality or race and class, instead of chasing our tails after fascist trolls misdirection.