Saturday, June 21, 2008

Coppersblog ...

.. celebrates two million hits. Even with PC Copperfield having jumped ship to the land of the not-so-free, absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the sharp end of the law and order debate.

Others have barged through the door he kicked down - Inspector Gadget, Nightjack, MetCountyMounty, PC Bloggs, Sergeant Simon and others on the blogroll - but Dave started the ball rolling.
(Declaration of interest - I was a fan anyway, but was chuffed to find myself described in his links as a 'superior conservative blog'. I noted in his book a P J O'Rourke quote - to be fair, I think PJ was quoting someone else - which I like to think he got from here)

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately since DC left full-time operation of Coppersblog, his successors have been taken over by liberalism, a sort of Invasion of the Bodysnatchers scenario.

In a thread a few weeks ago they decided that not only was discussion of differing racial crime rates unwarranted but even denied that such differences can be observed.

As a result some comments were deleted and comment moderation is now fully enforced, so the delicate ears of the nations plods will not be sullied by debate as to why black people are more prone to committing certain crimes. In fact from the official coppersblog standpoint, such differences don't even exist. Thats only a step away from the tired argument that non-white crime (which is, of course, no more prevalent than white) is caused by white racism. Maybe they've already said that, I don't know, Ive stopped visiting, I can get that analysis from the Guardian etc anytime.

Seems all that Home Office diversity training has worked a treat. Or perhaps the powers that be have realised a bit of disinformation is whats needed. Rather than shut down an irritant like DC, 'turn' his blog - a trusted source - to disseminate the state line. Makes me wonder anyway.

The Coppersblog Team said...

Thanks from the team for your kind comments, Laban.
Re the racism debate raised by your commentor, we'd hardly qualify as liberals.
We believe in being extremely tough on ALL criminals (particularly those involved in offences of violence).
It doesn't matter to us what race they are: just bang them up and law abiding black and white and Asian folks can get on with their lives.
Hence, race is irrelevant to the debate - in fact, it takes focus away from the real issue, which is weak sentencing by a naiive judiciary.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect it is important to discuss the differences in race/culture and crime, for the simple reason that in the modern West a higher proportion of minorities are in jail than 'whites' yet it is claimed everyone is equal and therefore the only reason for the disparity is the racism of the police and justice system.
Those who want to weaken the justice system then use that as a way to attack the Police and make it difficult for them to do their job by creating massive amounts of regulations and paperwork to take on this imaginary racism.
Surely you/we must challange the central assertion that all groups commit crime at the same rate which would then get us back to some common sense policing instead of the 'politically correct' policing we have today.

Its not a black white issue either, we have the same politically correct soft approach to the 'travelling community'.
We've had stuff nicked by them also, batteries, people have had chainsaws and tools go missing but they just don't bother reporting it anymore.

The Police only want to take on people with a fixed address and a bank account who are easier to process with the paperwork and they can get some money out of with a fixed penalty fine.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wonders whether the Coppersblog is there ''to disseminate the state line''

Then the Coppersblog team come along and prove it to be true.

Oh dear

Another anonymous

Anonymous said...

Regards your recent abortion posts.
How much will someone like Ann Furedi have to do before you start to question her intentions rather than ability?
Surely there must come a point?

Why is it that the most radical abortion promotors are almost always people who have a long history of anti West antagonism? is this really just coincidence?

judge fudge said...

Hence, race is irrelevant to the debate - in fact, it takes focus away from the real issue, which is weak sentencing by a naiive judiciary.

The naive judiciary would entirely agree with you that "race is irrelevant" -- that lie is part of the liberalism that has created the present disaster. In reality, as opposed to liberal fantasy, it is extremely relevant that certain groups -- blacks and increasingly Muslims -- commit crimes at vastly higher rates than the indigenous majority. The "real issue" includes these facts: a) mass immigration, imposed on the UK rather than voted for, has allowed these crime-prone groups to establish themselves; b) the mass immigration isn't stopping. I'm glad I'm not in the police and having to watch my back constantly in case I'm being spied on for thought crime, and I doubt Coppersblog really believe what they're claiming.

Laban said...

I think the point the Coppersblog people are making is that, as policemen and women, they're there to bang up offenders with no regard to race, creed, colour etc. What cheeses them off is idiotic liberals who come between them and this righteous task - many of whom are magistrates and judges.

Whether race A or community B are more or less prone to committing crime A or crime B may well make some difference on the ground and this may or may not affact police attitudes and behaviours - but that's not what their blog is all about.

Put it another way - if all the diverse groups that enrich the patchwork quilt of British society had exactly the same propensity to commit crime as the natives, crime would still be extremely high and action against it extremely weak and ineffectual - (mostly) through no fault of the front line police officer. THAT is what Coppersblog is all about.

Laban said...

anon : "the most radical abortion promotors are almost always people who have a long history of anti West antagonism"

I've got no idea what Ann Furedi's backstory is. Is she Mrs Frank Furedi ?

Mail me the tale and if it's not untrue/libellous maybe I'll put it up.

judge fudge said...

Whether race A or community B are more or less prone to committing crime A or crime B may well make some difference on the ground

"May" is wrong: it makes a huge difference on the ground and in all parts of the criminal justice system. It's ridiculous to complain about liberal judges while accepting a central tenet of their liberalism: that race is irrelevant, except when whitey is being bashed and blamed for all non-white failures.

and this may or may not affact police attitudes and behaviours - but that's not what their blog is all about.

Why not? It's a police blog and race is a hugely important variable in deciding how best to police a society. Part of the problem we face is that laws and policing methods suitable for one race are not suitable for other races. Blacks need to be policed harder than whites and in black nations they are policed hard. Too hard, in fact:

Jamaican police shot dead 113 people last year, down from 133 the previous year. But Jamaica only has a population of 2.6 million, compared with eight million in New York City, which had around 25 fatal police shootings last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3674251.stm

Can you imagine what would be said if the British police were responsible for a fraction of that mayhem among Jamaicans here? But in reality, thanks to the liberals Coppersblog complains so loudly about, we've gone to the opposite extreme: blacks are policed too softly and both blacks and non-blacks suffer as a result.

Steve said...

I think Judge Fudge reveals his or her true colours with this remark: 'Blacks need to be policed harder than whites.'
Clearly, we're dealing here with a bona fide racist.

judge fudge said...

I think Judge Fudge reveals his or her true colours with this remark: 'Blacks need to be policed harder than whites.'
Clearly, we're dealing here with a bona fide racist.


Well, you've given what I said a label but you haven't disproved it. Clearly, we're dealing here with a bona fide thought policeman. That blacks need to be policed harder than whites is plain fact. They are far more crime-prone than whites, which is why Jamaica, with a far smaller population than the UK, has a far higher murder rate. And if you take Jamaicans out of the British murder stats, the discrepancy becomes even greater. All facts that don't disappear because you label them "racist".

Anonymous said...

The same could be said of the difference in crime rates between all working-class and all middle-class people, which are likely to be at least as great as the differences between racial groups.

Anonymous said...

"And if you take Jamaicans out of the British murder stats, the discrepancy becomes even greater."

There have been no Home Office homicide statistics to date which subdivide the category 'black' into its components.

However, it is likely that if Caribbean killers were removed from the homicide figures, leaving behind Africans, then the discrepancy in murder rates between 'whites' and 'blacks' would be lower, not higher.

judge fudge said...

The same could be said of the difference in crime rates between all working-class and all middle-class people, which are likely to be at least as great as the differences between racial groups.

Thanks for making a good point on my side. The working class commit more crime, therefore should be policed harder, just as men should be policed harder than women and blacks policed harder than whites. In all social groups, blacks commit far more crime, both against themselves and against others. Soft policing of blacks is bad for everyone, including blacks.

"And if you take Jamaicans out of the British murder stats, the discrepancy becomes even greater."

There have been no Home Office homicide statistics to date which subdivide the category 'black' into its components.


Yes, the HO does its best to obscure important patterns, but there's an easy indirect measure of Jamaican criminality:

Jamaicans comprise 13% of all foreign national prisoners. Some 19 nationalities have only one prisoner each in British jails.

So tiny Jamaica supplies 13% of all foreign national prisoners in the UK. They're not there for traffic offences and British citizens of Jamaican origin will again be hugely over-represented among violent criminals.

However, it is likely that if Caribbean killers were removed from the homicide figures, leaving behind Africans, then the discrepancy in murder rates between 'whites' and 'blacks' would be lower, not higher.

That could well be right, but the discrepancy still exists and still justifies stronger policing for blacks, even if only violence is taken into account. Africans are probably responsible for far more fraud than Caribbeans and certain African groups, e.g. Somalis, aren't doing badly for violence.

Anonymous said...

My sort of Blog! I was a Chairman of Magistrates until 3 years ago when the insanity all got too much for me and I quit.
Readers of delicate sensitivities should not visit my blogsite which is updated daily.
http://christianityisnotleftwing.blogspot.com/

It puts the blame for all that is wrong onto this PC [no offence intended], do-gooding, liberal-left, godless, media dominated disaster which passes for a society.

LES

Taskis said...

I realise I come late to this article, but my: what a load of old cobblers from 'judge fudge'.

It's precisely this sort of statistical dithering that's making the UK so hard to police at all. There are laws in this country. They apply to all citizens equally. When an allegation is made against a citizen, it's the duty of the police to gather all evidence available - detaining the accused while they do so if need be - and submit the accused and the evidence to the courts. It's then up to the courts to decide on the guilt of the accused and, if guilty, pronounce sentence.

Simple enough stuff, all that, I'd think. But then we have this additional factor thrown in: the colour of the accused and, more significantly, an *assumed statistical likelihood of criminality* based on that colour (or religion, or class, or sex, or whatever else).

This is a problem. Since when is it the place of the police to determine whether a given section of the population is in general more prone to crime? We're told they have to target their resources, and engage in 'intelligence-led policing' (unless that buzzword's out of fashion nowadays?) - but when all's said and done the police's function falls into two categories: proactively, they discourage crime and they reassure the public. Reactively, they gather evidence and they prosecute offenders. Those functions shouldn't change dependent on the colour of their suspect; and more importantly they shouldn't be confused. Police have no reason to be investigating crimes that haven't happened - which is essentially what judge fudge is advocating with his demand to 'police blacks/men/peasants harder'. That way lies totalitarianism.

Race becomes relevant only when the police are dealing with 'hate crimes' - and since the message of hate crime law is that, say, a violent assault *not* based on race is somehow not as serious as one that is, the sooner such discriminatory legislation is done away with the better. Crime is crime; the law is the law. No-one has the right to expect preferential treatment because of their race; and conversely no-one must be subjected to poor treatment on the same basis.