'Racist' murders - who are the bad guys?
The media has been full of stories about 'racist' murders lately. Two spring to mind, the ubiquitous Anthony Walker attack, and the not so publicised Christopher Yates killing.
Most of the bloggs I regularly read have all had posts concerning the cases, contrasting and comparing the media coverage given to the two. I even weighed in with my own comments on the PickledPolitics web site www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/165.
Laban Tall's blogg, a favourite of mine at ukcommentators.blogspot.com had a interesting link to a UK Governments Home Office report: Statistics on Racism and the Criminal Justice System at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf.
He pointed out that part of the report has a table (table 3.6) titled 'Ethnic appearance of currently recorded homicide victims by ethnicity of principal suspect' that might throw light on actual occurrences of 'inter racial' killings.
Looking at the raw data as presented doesn't seem to imply anything. Though it does show for example that during the years 2001 to 2004 Black suspects murdered 87 'White's, whereas 'White' suspects murdered 38 Blacks.
But what do these actual figures really show? who are the good guys? who are the bad guys? or are all 'groups' as bad as each other.
Moreover with percentages of this, that, and the other thrown around by the media when its comes to racism', crime, and one of their favourite topics 'racist' crime - how does the percentage of different groups within the overall population affect interpretation of the data.
So as an experiment I decided to mathematically model a perfect society where two different groups went about the lives committing crime blind to each other group.
Firstly I chose a population of two groups A and B with a split of:
A - 90%
B - 10%
If group A and B go about committing their crimes, lets say murder for instance, totally at random we get the following results:
Table 1: Distribution of Murders showing Perpetrator and Victim between group A and B.
What surprised me was that the number of murders of group A by group B turn out to be exactly the same as the number of murders of group B by group A, in a perfect society where no one took into account a persons group. This fact was not mathematically intuitive, to me at least.
To test this further I worked models for different population split percentages: 80:20, 70:30, 60:40. In each case the results always had the same relationship as the first example, with the number of inter-group murders being exactly the same in whether the group was perpetrator or victim: mirrored along the diagonal axis.
I then worked a model for a three group society: A, B, and C to see if the relationship between groups would still be the same.
Here the population split was:
A - 60%
B - 30%
C - 10%
Table 2: Distribution of Murders showing Perpetrator and Victim between groups A, B, and C.
Once again the same relationship occurred with the same mirroring along the diagonal axis:
A on B murders were equal to B on A murders
A on C murders were equal to C on A murders
B on C murders were equal to C on B murders
Ghettoization of geographical areas also has no affect as each sub-area can be calculated separately, then the figures for each sub-area added together to give a total which shows the same relationship between the groups.between the groups in the total figures.
These models all seem to indicate that no matter what the particular percentage of each group in the overall population is, the number of murders between the same group pairing should always be the same.
Table 3: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, for 'White' and Black/Asian (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', B_A = Black and Asian.
Form this table it can be seen that Blacks and Asians commit 94% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:1.94.
It might be considered disingenuous and unfair to lump Blacks and Asians together, therefore we can separate them into two tables.
Table 4: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, for 'White' and Black (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', B = Black.
From this table it can be seen that Blacks commit 129% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:2.29.
Table 5: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, 'White' and Asian (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', A = Asian.
Form this table it can be seen that Asians commit 32% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:1.32.
To me it seems that the media constantly implies that the bad guys are the British, the indigenous English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, causing untold suffering to innocent 'ethnic' immigrant minorities, through their rampant, and often highlighted, murderous 'racism'.
The cold hard mathematics starkly tell a different story.
So what can account for these differences in the extra murders of one group by another, where in the mathematical model the killings should be equal in number.
Perhaps something called 'racism'? and if the data from the Home Office is allowed to speak for itself, then it shows who the bad guys really are.
Most of the bloggs I regularly read have all had posts concerning the cases, contrasting and comparing the media coverage given to the two. I even weighed in with my own comments on the PickledPolitics web site www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/165.
Laban Tall's blogg, a favourite of mine at ukcommentators.blogspot.com had a interesting link to a UK Governments Home Office report: Statistics on Racism and the Criminal Justice System at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf.
He pointed out that part of the report has a table (table 3.6) titled 'Ethnic appearance of currently recorded homicide victims by ethnicity of principal suspect' that might throw light on actual occurrences of 'inter racial' killings.
Looking at the raw data as presented doesn't seem to imply anything. Though it does show for example that during the years 2001 to 2004 Black suspects murdered 87 'White's, whereas 'White' suspects murdered 38 Blacks.
But what do these actual figures really show? who are the good guys? who are the bad guys? or are all 'groups' as bad as each other.
Moreover with percentages of this, that, and the other thrown around by the media when its comes to racism', crime, and one of their favourite topics 'racist' crime - how does the percentage of different groups within the overall population affect interpretation of the data.
So as an experiment I decided to mathematically model a perfect society where two different groups went about the lives committing crime blind to each other group.
The theory
Firstly I chose a population of two groups A and B with a split of:
A - 90%
B - 10%
If group A and B go about committing their crimes, lets say murder for instance, totally at random we get the following results:
Table 1: Distribution of Murders showing Perpetrator and Victim between group A and B.
| perpetrator | ||||
| v i c t i m | A | B | ||
| A | 81% | 9% | 90% | |
| B | 9% | 1% | 10% | |
| 90% | 10% | 100% | ||
What surprised me was that the number of murders of group A by group B turn out to be exactly the same as the number of murders of group B by group A, in a perfect society where no one took into account a persons group. This fact was not mathematically intuitive, to me at least.
To test this further I worked models for different population split percentages: 80:20, 70:30, 60:40. In each case the results always had the same relationship as the first example, with the number of inter-group murders being exactly the same in whether the group was perpetrator or victim: mirrored along the diagonal axis.
I then worked a model for a three group society: A, B, and C to see if the relationship between groups would still be the same.
Here the population split was:
A - 60%
B - 30%
C - 10%
Table 2: Distribution of Murders showing Perpetrator and Victim between groups A, B, and C.
| perpetrator | |||||
| v i c t i m | A | B | C | ||
| A | 36% | 18% | 6% | 60% | |
| B | 18% | 9% | 3% | 30% | |
| C | 6% | 3% | 1% | 10% | |
| 60% | 30% | 10% | 100% | ||
Once again the same relationship occurred with the same mirroring along the diagonal axis:
A on B murders were equal to B on A murders
A on C murders were equal to C on A murders
B on C murders were equal to C on B murders
Ghettoization of geographical areas also has no affect as each sub-area can be calculated separately, then the figures for each sub-area added together to give a total which shows the same relationship between the groups.between the groups in the total figures.
These models all seem to indicate that no matter what the particular percentage of each group in the overall population is, the number of murders between the same group pairing should always be the same.
Using real data
Substituting the real Home Office figures, where Black and Asian(Brown?) are summed, into the model (while removing Dr Shipmans murders) we get:Table 3: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, for 'White' and Black/Asian (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', B_A = Black and Asian.
| perpetrator | ||||
| v i c t i m | 'W' | B_A | ||
| 'W' | 74.6% (1319) | 7.0% (124) | 81.6% (1443) | |
| B_A | 3.6% (64) | 14.7% (260) | 18.3% (324) | |
| 78.2% (1383) | 21.7% (384) | 99.9% (1767) | ||
Form this table it can be seen that Blacks and Asians commit 94% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:1.94.
It might be considered disingenuous and unfair to lump Blacks and Asians together, therefore we can separate them into two tables.
Table 4: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, for 'White' and Black (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', B = Black.
| perpetrator | ||||
| v i c t i m | 'W' | B | ||
| 'W' | 83.2% (1319) | 5.5% (87) | 88.7% (1406) | |
| B | 2.4% (38) | 8.8% (140) | 11.2% (178) | |
| 85.6% (1357) | 14.3% (227) | 99.9% (1584) | ||
From this table it can be seen that Blacks commit 129% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:2.29.
Table 5: Murders in UK between Ethnic groups, 2001 to 2004, 'White' and Asian (actual figures in brackets)
Where: 'W' = 'White', A = Asian.
| perpetrator | ||||
| v i c t i m | 'W' | A | ||
| 'W' | 88.8% (1319) | 2.5% (37) | 91.3% (1356) | |
| A | 1.9% (28) | 6.8% (101) | 8.7% (129) | |
| 90.7% (1347) | 9.3% (138) | 100% (1485) | ||
Form this table it can be seen that Asians commit 32% more murders against 'Whites', a ratio of 1:1.32.
To me it seems that the media constantly implies that the bad guys are the British, the indigenous English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish, causing untold suffering to innocent 'ethnic' immigrant minorities, through their rampant, and often highlighted, murderous 'racism'.
The cold hard mathematics starkly tell a different story.
So what can account for these differences in the extra murders of one group by another, where in the mathematical model the killings should be equal in number.
Perhaps something called 'racism'? and if the data from the Home Office is allowed to speak for itself, then it shows who the bad guys really are.
posted by TottenhamLad at 12:02 PM
9 Comments:
'good guys'? 'bad guys'? Unbelievable! You, sir, are the kind of deviant sub-human who has absolutely no place within a caring, inclusive, nurturing society such as ours.
In fact, we here at Puppy Mansions are so outraged by your so-called 'accurate maths' and 'precisely researched charts' that there is only one recourse of action open to those of us who wish to make a stand against such unreconstructed, hegemonic filth --
You're blogrolled, mate. ;)
Tottenham Lad: What number of black-on-black murders does your model predict should take place, assuming that the 2001 National Census estimates that Blacks comprise around 2.2% of the population of England and Wales?
Are you gong to write any more, you lazy sod?
The Home Office figures show that blacks have a much higher murder rate than whites. This should be no surprise to anyone who inhabits the real world.
Your model assumes that all racial groups should commit murders at the same rate, not just that their respective killers select their victims at random.
If one race is more murderous on average than the others, but selects its victims at random, then there will be an imbalance between the number of inter-racial murders committed by that race and by other races.
The Home Office figures show that blacks kill whites at a higher rate than your model says they should, and that whites kill blacks at a lower rate than they should. But the figures also show that blacks kill each other at a very much higher rate than your model predicts.
Your model provides useful ways of looking at the Home Office data. But it does not prove the claim you are trying to make, that blacks are more murderously racist than whites. It demonstrates that blacks, on average, are more likely to kill, full stop.
(Were black killers to be subdivided into Africans and Afro-Caribbeans, who each make up roughly half of the black population of this country, then the murder rate for the latter would probably come out as extremely high.)
Interesting study. As is said, not exactly a shocker for those of us in the real world. I have a further question for you though as you have ploughed through the study.
What percentage of each category (white on black, black on white etc) was actually classed as having a racist motive?
So let me guess - the white racist murderers are the good guys and the black racist murderers are the bad guys.
Anonymous above says it demonstrates that blacks, on average, are more likely to kill, full stop
Maybe. But black people are more likely to be poor and live in inner cities than white people, and poor people in inner cities are more likely to murder than other people. Any model needs to take this firmly into account before drawing any broader conclusions.
Also if you want to compare the racist attitudes of two large groups of people, it's arguably not the best plan to focus on the very small collection of murderers in each group. It *might* be true that black murderers are more likely to be racist than white murderers. But that doesn't even come close to proving that black people are more likely to be racist than white people.
I notice that men (of any race) are far more likely to murder than women (of any race). Therefore I hope you'll join me in concluding that race is in fact largely irrelevant: in actual fact men are the bad guys, and women are the good guys.
Race is not irrelevant - more precisely, ethnic groups are not irrelevant.
Everyone knows different ethnic groups fill different niches of delinquency. Turkish gangs are involved in the heroin trade, but very few Jamaicans are. Nigerian crooks are not noted for their violence in the UK, instead they specialise in scams of various kinds.
Fact remains that some Caribbean countries, with Jamaica head and shoulders above the rest, have a tradition of violent confrontation and macho aggressiveness.
Most Caribbeans in London and elsewhere are law-abiding people, but unfortunately there are enough ne'er-do-wells among their ranks to push murder and mugging rates to high levels in many of the areas in which they live.
Other ethnic groups also have experienced hard times and discrimination in this country, but they don't contribute anything like as much delinquency as some swaggering, pea-brained Jamaican males do.
^You'll be surprised at how violent a country Nigeria is.
The Nigerians who come to this country are often different from their Jamaican counterparts because they come from the wealthier end of Nigerian society.
What you conveniently fail to metion is that only 7.9% of the UK is black - Making blacks a lot more likely to be racially murdered than a white person.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home