In his recently published review into the treatment of black, Asian and ethnic minority (BAME) people in the criminal justice system, Labour MP David Lammy tells us that their trust in the CJS is low.

This contrasts with the fact that most people say they are ‘confident’ the system is fair, though black and mixed ethnic groups are the least likely to say so. I have no doubt this is what they believe, and it is not surprising, but not for the reasons Mr Lammy gives.

It is not surprising since, for years now, these groups have been told little else by the liberal Left than that they are subject to discrimination under the law. The truth of this however is open to debate.

Instead of setting out from a clean sheet to explore it, Mr Lammy does the opposite. Along with just about every other social justice warrior before him he makes the casual assumption that ‘unrepresentative’ numbers – otherwise described as the ‘disproportionate representation’ of black and Muslims in the criminal justice system – is evidence in itself of injustice.

This logical or deductive fallacy is the premise on which Mr Lammy’s review is based.

By virtue of its failure to arrest, sentence or imprison a proportionally representative racial mix of the population, then the CSJ must be operating unjustly. It must be racist.

At best this is an appeal to probability. Leaping to such a conclusion from the start cuts out proper consideration of any explanation other than prejudice.

For David Lammy, every negative statistic is just another example of the ‘inequity’ that his report aims to reduce willy-nilly. In every arena, from school exclusion to cautions, arrest and prison, the stats are taken as evidence of social or criminal injustice, not of bad or criminal behaviour.

And don’t expect to see barristers or judges defending themselves against these slurs of ‘institutional’ racial prejudice caused by a lack of ‘diversity’ any time soon. They would not dare.

For Mr Lammy is far from alone in his certainty. The Prime Minister herself gave her imprimatur to this theory on the Downing Street steps the day she took office: ‘If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white.’

This Left liberal certainty is shared by that well-known champion of the victimised and critic of British justice, the oft-BBC-quoted Richard Garside, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London. He has the advantage, too, of knowing the reason for this discrimination:

‘Given Britain’s long history of racism and imperialism it should not greatly surprise us that black and minority ethnic groups are disproportionately members of social classes that have tended to experience greater victimisation and to be the subject of police attention.’

Let’s blame the Empire for today’s libertarian social dysfunction, disorder and disrespect for the law! Why not?

It sounds good but analysis based on the numbers shows just how difficult it is to arrive at a clear and certain conclusion of active discrimination.

Back in 2010 the police, in a valiant attempt to defend themselves from this sort of attack on their integrity, provided a crime breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys against whom they took action for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in the previous year. It revealed the rather uncomfortable reverse fact that, although just 12 per cent of London’s 7.5million population was then black (including those of mixed race), among those proceeded against for street crimes 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent and for gun crimes, 67 per cent.

The same police figures also revealed high levels of black-on-black murder and violent crime – with black men twice as likely to be victims, making up 29 per cent of the male victims of gun crime and 24 per cent of the male victims of knife crime.

At the time Shaun Bailey, then a black Tory election candidate in London and charity worker, said: ‘The community has to look at itself and say that, at the end of the day, these figures suggest we are heavily – not casually – involved in violent crime. We are also involved in crime against ourselves – and we regularly attack each other.’

Lammy writes, understandably, that his main concern is with the young. And he notes that black children are more than twice as likely to grow up in a lone-parent family. But still the fault (and his potential answer) lies not with the culture of parenting – the fatherless families that he is well aware of – but with a youth justice system that he complains has all but given up on ‘parenting’. Excuse me – when was it handed that role?

The real problem, of course, is that parents have given up on responsible parenting. This is what Ray Lewis, another pioneering black youth worker, teacher and former deputy to the London Mayor, identified as the root cause of ‘more blacks going to prison than to university’.

His solution has been not to change the criminal justice system but to change the culture in which black boys grow up – culture that is likely otherwise to land them on the wrong side of the law.

But Lammy’s long and tortuous list of contradictory recommendations put the burden on the State, not the mother or the father. They betray the original ‘blame game’ logical flaw and dodge around the really critical issue of child neglect.

His ‘fix’ to this ‘injustice’ is spurious. It is to turn the criminal justice system inside out, insisting it become both colour-conscious and colour-blind at one and the same time. All references to colour and race, he advocates, must be redacted to prevent supposed bias in sentencing. At the same time a compulsory record of colour and ethnic identity must be kept to ensure more representative, numerically, BAME quotas.

Rod Liddle of the Sunday Times is right – it would be simpler just to bang up a few more whites.

What the Lammy Review tragically does is to underline BAME’s perceived victim status. It repeats that terrible lie that ‘diversity’ in the police and law is the necessary condition for fairness and justice.

Any government that tries to impose Mr Lammy’s cockeyed new race compliance practices on the CJS will just make a rod for its own and the law’s back. Instead of inspiring confidence in the system it will do the opposite: feeding ever more distrust and division for the negative politics of identity to thrive on.


  1. “Given Britain’s long history of racism and imperialism . . . ”

    No, not a “given” but infinitely debatable. Garside’s foolish presumption is typical of the circular nonsense of a modern political agenda being shoehorned into a subjective and sweeping statement about this country’s history in order to support a modern political agenda. Such idiocy is bound to arouse racial tensions which “academics” like Garside seem keen to import here from the USA.

  2. Multiculturalism failed for obvious reasons, chief among them being its denial of common rights enshrined in common law which means exactly what it says on the box, that the law applies equally to everyone without exception. Immigrants see multiculturalism as the right to live separately if they wish according to the values of the homelands they left behind. The native population see this right as a form of privilege which attacks the foundations of their organically evolved society.

    A clash of cultures is inevitable when immigration reaches unmanageable levels as it has in the UK and across the EU. Under multiculturalism, immigrants exercise their right not to integrate, the native population expect they should for the common good and the preservation of law and order. Mr Lammy wants the British state to acknowledge that minority youths, even if born here, do not accept either British law or British culture and he has the state’s officialisation of multiculturalism on his side.

    That support notwithstanding, all he proves is that multiculturalism is inconsistent with the a fair and orderly polity. No society can allow minorities to live outside the norms of the democratically enacted common law. The UK and its EU neighbours are still in the early throes of the pathologies familiar in the United States which for all the happy talk of a melting pot has always found immigration hard to manage as a variety of incoming cultures vie constantly to supplant the original Wasp culture.

    Lammy makes the same arguments on behalf of lawless Black youths that US liberals make on behalf of lawless Americans Black youths – that they are different and that their needs and interests as minorities must exempt them from the mere common law. He and they call the treatment of minorities racist when what they are really doing is attacking the foundations of a country in which they choose not to assimilate.

    Lammy himself, for all his apparent working within the system, actually rejects it by identifying himself as a Black man by which he means that he is in permanent conflict with it. Naturally, White liberals cheer him on but what they are encouraging is their own destruction

    • It’s learnt at school. Black boys of Caribbean descent – primarily, not always – will shout racism as a get out clause for anything. Doesn’t matter if they’re bang to rights, caught doing the same thing with 10 white kids who get the exact same treatment – it’s still racism.

      The problem is there are too many numpties whose job prospects depend on believing it. Teachers know this and play it safe.

    • Mass immigration from Africa & Pakistan/Bangaldesh etc has been largely
      disastrous. Obviously because of the huge numbers concerned, much more
      seriously because of their highly inappropriate cultures which they have been
      permitted, even encouraged to bring with them.
      The original Caribbean, Windrush, immigrants were invited & often poorly received.
      Since the later 1970s, decent Caribbean origin Britons have been marginalised, thanks
      to the prevalence of violent youth culture. A culture whose proponents remain violent
      well in to adulthood and is encouraged by reckless accusations of “racism’
      now a meaningless term.
      The UK is the least racist developed country on Earth, which is why non white people,
      especially criminals, risk their lives daily toto get in here.

    • Cameron declared in 2011 that state multi-culturalism had failed but then neither he nor his successor did anything to stop the machinery of state from continuing to peddle it and promote its presumption as “a good thing”.

      Before that devolution exacerbated division. The identity politics and ridiculous resurrection of historical grievance by the left have made division worse. And they call Farage “divisive” when British state policy for 20 years has been relentlessly divisive and destructive at the same time always boasting of “British values”.

      • Cameron wasn’t alone in confessing that multiculturalism had failed. Merkel and Sarkozy also said it publicly. All three were kicking sand in our eyes. They admitted failure to lure us into think that the policy would be amended when in fact they wanted to put us to sleep while they continued as before. Guy Mollet as French prime minister delivered one of my all-time favourite political quotes when he said “it is not because our policy is bad that we are going to change.” That was telling ’em.

    • > Multiculturalism failed for obvious reasons, chief among them being its denial of common rights enshrined in common law which means exactly what it says on the box, that the law applies equally to everyone without exception.

      The equality under the law based on the premise that people are equal in one way or another – in value, or in potential.

      Assuming this premise is correct, the equality under the law should lead to eventual equality of outcomes – equal possibilities playing under same rules will settle on similar results. There sure will be some variation due to luck, but it should not be very pronounced, or – God forbid – correlate with particular racial, ethnical or religious groups. But this is not what happens. Some ethnic and religious minorities persistently lag behind the rest.

      There might be two options why: 1) there is no equality (because of deeply institutionalised racism and unconscious biases, etc.), or 2) the premise itself is false.

      But, if premise IS false – then there is no justification for the equality under law itself! If people are not equal in any way, and can not be made equal; if the amount of responsibility they can take varies vastly – why they should enjoy equal rights then?

      It is a dangerous path to take. Hence nobody does. Instead, Progressives and Conservatives alike double down on the first option: there are external factors that make the system unjust, and we should pinpoint and fix them. So they keep doing what’s not working because the alternative will ruin the narrative, belief system and the foundation of the Modern West. For the last decade, they even started to mask the problem to keep it out of sight by hiding the stats and adopting a two-tier judicial system for whites and BAME people to reduce the numbers to something that will look “equal”.

      But willful blindness never ends well.

    • “White liberals cheer him on but what they are encouraging is their own destruction.”
      Not “but” – “because”.

  3. Lammy’s report was typically a blackwash; it’s what we come to expect from deniers! The only result of ignoring black crime or arrests will be to see a rise in black deaths (sadly). Lammy should be careful what he wishes for!

    • Exactly. I wonder whether the black families who have lost a relative due to endemic knife crime are sorry to see the perpetrator behind bars.

  4. Even if Lammy were right, the best way to reduce the likelihood of incarceration would be surely to minimize crime? The only way to minimize crime would be effective communitu action and, shock horror, effective policing. Lammy appears caught in a circle; he attacks the law, whilst depending upon it for his solution. Now, I would not assume that claims of racial bias were all untrue, but the fault surely lies with those acting in the name of the law, not the law or system itself.

  5. I am sick of this blatant self-victimisation.
    I first came across it as a corporal in 4 Armd Div in BAOR.
    We had a sprog posted in, surname Khan.
    After a few exercises in the field, he went and complained to the OC that I was victimising him in a racist way.
    He was a bloody useless soldier with a bad attitude and, as mildly as I could, I was trying to get him up to speed (when I was forced to delegate tasks to him, that is).
    At the time (80s) in that unit, I had (not that I thought about it much) black, Asian and Chinese mates who I regularly went out on the lash with.
    Obviously the OC knew this because he told Mr Khan where to go.
    I am rather afraid that it would be very different now…….

    • That’s the problem, it’s a generic issue as well with many problems that are unconnected with race. Even though everyone knows it , no-one dares say “It’s not racism. I’m not racist. You’re a waste of oxygen, f**k off”.

      Partly because we are “educating” too many otherwise unemployable people who earn their living from promoting this cr*p. Sacking all of these people would improve the country dramatically for all races.

      So, Steven Lawrence for example was not a victim of institutional racist policing. He was a victim of lazy incompetent policing.

      • Pandering to victim culture is now a lucrative industry at taxpayers expense. Those involved won’t be reining it in any time soon but instead seeking to extend the parameters with ever more barminess – as we have seen and continue to see.

  6. Shock horror, could it possibly be that blacks, coloureds or whatever we are allowed to call them are committing more crime?

  7. Like the lumping together of “Black and Minority Ethnics”. Anyone want to bet that Indians and Chinese origin “ethnics” aren’t persecuted by the evil racist Police ?

    (I seem to rememher this racism doesn’t extend to Black Girls or African-origin Black boys either…)

  8. Only a man as thick as “mastermind” Lammy could conclude that an entire section of the population be exempted from the rule of law.

      • The London riots were a national disgrace & illustrated the racism
        at the heart of UK policing.
        Instead of holding black immigrants to the same standards as indigenes they were allowed to loot & riot for many hours untroubled by police intervention.
        One of the many undesirable effects was that respectable black families
        were unprotected while their homes were burgled.

        • It may be the same problem as the US. With those riots the blogger “Inspector Gadget” was one of those Police officers who were there, with a team, ready to deal with them (and, from what I remember he wrote, wanting to deal with them), but they were kept on hold permanently.

  9. I wouldn’t trust the hyperbolic Lammy to fill in a car hire form let alone preside over a parliamentary committee or make recommendations. He is a self evident idiot.

  10. Why are there more blacks and Muslims (but not Sikhs, Hindus and Jews) in the criminal justice system compared to their proportions in the general population?

    In general, race is not a determinant.


    Before they came in large numbers (in the 1950s) they grew up in lands where the system of ideas were predominantly Judeao-Christian and the system of education was Victorian discipline applied. Spoken and written English were the tools of communication.

    After arriving in Britain young black males, in just one generation, rejected the only system of ideas that could assist them to progress: Judeao-Christianity.

    They confused that system of ideas with race, in the same way that whites confuse Islam with Asian.

    Having abandoned the faith of their forefathers they took to the faith of the white Left liberal: race (on the basis of a materialist world-view) and sensuality. The result is no, for example, commitment to the maintenance of the family. Having been abandoned by their fathers, the vacuum created was filled by the gang-leader who held the flick-knife: power and money and status.


    They have strong family structures and extended kin-networks. The white Left liberal (again confusing Judeao-Christianity with white) tells them, for example, rear entry is natural. The young Muslim concludes the whites (Christianity) are mentally ill.

    His gravitation towards a faith (Islam) with strict rules is impelling. But, what does he find in Islam? He finds and practises its repetitive rituals and thinks: but I still feel dirty on the inside – the externals cannot wash clean that which is dirty on the inside and a fatalism (kismet) which jails his spirit from ever experiencing true joy.

    He cannot smoke marajuana in the home – stigma. He parks his car with friends in a public place and smokes.

    The sergeant has instructed his officers to ‘bag suspects’ on patrol to make it look that ‘we are fighting crime’. The officers drive to the local public car park and ‘bag’ the Asians (Muslims).

    What a bleedin’ mess.

    • Forgot the Jews ; historically the most targeted group, the first soft target of people who want to blame another ethnic group for all the ills of the world.

      I bet the number of Jews locked up proportionally is both remarkably low, and mostly white-collar crime (e.g. tax fiddling not stabbing people)

      • You are unquestionably correct.
        Judaism has an unpleasant god, but with no promise of an afterlife &
        no rewards for terrorism.
        Jewish values, save the most extreme, have favoured productive & intellectual
        The result is that when a Jew behaves criminally it usually involves business
        or white collar crime.
        You won’t get mugged on the streets of one of the, sadly, few remaining “jewish areas” in the UK.
        Who, other than a muslim, would walk the streets of Southall, or Rotherham ?
        Even Harrow, once a wealthy middle class area has become a ghetto.
        Viewing the local press, the convicted or wanted criminals are overwhelmingly
        Last night I found myself lost, fortunately in a car, in Hounslow.
        It is now a third world dump. Never was much, but I saw girls as young as 10 or 11 in full burkas, some with face coverings & huge bearded men in robeslooking like Bin Laden.
        I was ashamed & a little scared.

      • These groups see us just like Europeans see the Jews (even though the Ashkenazi Jews are about as European as anyone else which is maybe why).
        They tend to be more successful and therefore achieve positions of power in disproportionate numbers and rather than just attributing this to a higher average IQ ,which is taboo, we infer some nefarious motive and scapegoat them for all our ills.
        Are whites going to become the next hated diaspora.

  11. With all the recent rioting in the US, the topic of apparent special treatment of black communities in Anglo-Saxon countries is constantly reappearing in my mind.

    I don’t buy “white guilt” for an answer. It is very superficial, and I do not believe in mass delusions that run on the contrary to personal interests – which “white guilt” theory implies. But I think I figured another one.

    All modern political and social models we live by are built on a premise of a blank slate: that people might not have similar starting conditions, but people do have equal potential – which makes inequality a bad, unjust thing. For if anyone has a different potential, then inequality will be entirely justified – some people are just better at some (or at all) things than the other.

    Now, if people CAN reach equality, but are not equal, and we value equality above all (as achieving equality means reaching the highest possible potential for all the people means achieving eudaimonia), then the only plausible explanation is that something is wrong with the current system. The explanation that does not require reverting the initial premise, that’s it. And black community is a major problem here.

    Asians (both Southern and Eastern), on average, perform quite good, and so do whites. But blacks (again, on average – there are millions of black people who do just fine) lag behind no matter how hard Western societies try to drag them to the same level as the others – which puts the premise of tabula rasa under question.

    So, society, media, politics and academy have to invent new justifications for why it is so. Point out another, and another, and another environmental (and they have to be environmental to keep the premise of “tabula rasa” intact) reason for the lag: colonialism, racism, unfair court treatment, etc. That is why racism has mutated from the idea of supremacy based on belonging to one’s racial group to a vague, ever-present daemon that is blamed for every bad thing that happens to a black person. Any attempt to point out that inequality might be caused by inherent qualities of individuals of struggling communities automatically banned as “racism” – as it compromises The Premise.

    But why we so desperately cling to the blank slate idea? Well, it is because it enabled modernity.

    Why universal suffrage? Because all individuals are equal in their potential, hence any inequality in political representation means injustice.

    Why gender equality? Because all people are equal in their potential, hence any difference is unjust.

    Why wealth redistribution in the form of a welfare state? Because all individuals are equal in their potential, hence economic inequality means injustice.

    Why massive higher education? Because all people are equal in their potential, hence educational inequality is unjust.

    If we reject blank slate, we reject all of the above. Suddenly social hierarchy becomes justified (as Republicanism turns into the rule of a mob of inferiors), and wealth redistribution is not (tax your best to feed your worst? What nonsense!). Suddenly the universal human rights are under the question – shouldn’t we rather grant the individual rights according to the responsibilities taken? Suddenly the educational elitism becomes justified.

    Blank Slate is a column that holds the weight of the modern Western civilisation. We invested too much into this idea of Locke and Rousseau. To scrap it, we’ll have to rewind 300 years and chose another road.

    The problem is, modern science – evolutionary biology and genetics – made it obvious that this premise is wrong. Any intellectual critique of our current state will include those findings – and with enough intellectual honesty, our civilisation as we know it will be shattered in the no time.

    That is why pendulum, which is way on the Left now, does not swing back to the Right: for when it finally gets there, it will crush the very basis of Modernity; as Rights, those believers of Natural Order, will no doubt use those specific findings to validate their viewpoint. Nobody on top wants it: neither the Progressives nor the Conservatives. That is why that put the massive combined effort to keep the pendulum way on the Left, always doubling down on the blank slate, narrowing their minds, switching to chants instead of reasoning.

    They are afraid – and they should. And we all should be, as we are up for a historical change caused by a massive rethinking of our basic philosophical premises. The change the size of Enlightenment – and all that followed, from the French Republic to the Russian revolution.

    And black people? They are the pawn of white people’s intellectual game on how to organise the society properly. A model. A corner case. A stubborn deviation that falsifies the otherwise beautiful theory and hence have to be dealt with.

    Puting myself in their boots, I wouldn’t take the current amount of apologising attention from whites for given. It will not last.

  12. This “report” is typical of Lammy’s total lack of imagination, lucidity, or even basic principle. The perpetual complaint about higher numbers of arrests of ethic minorities, supposedly higher conviction rates and tougher sentencing has been doing the rounds for long enough, but acquired new legs with the invention of the murderous “Black Lives Matter” craze in the United States. Just as Barack Obama, with his trademark cynicism, welcomed BLM (often literally, into the White House), so he frequently harped on about unequal police searches, arrests, prison sentences and school suspensions/expulsions. All of these supposed iniquities were going on under the two black Attorneys-General whom he appointed. Lammy did no more – absolutely nothing more – than slavishly import the BLM propaganda from the States and regurgitate it into his completely predictable report.

    In her “The War on Cops”, Heather Mac Donald analyses the crime statistics in America and tests the leftist propaganda. Her book is no polemic. She is very fair, which has not stopped BLM’s antifa allies from using threats of violence, to prevent her delivering her conclusions at public meetings. In California, she points out, steps have already been taken to fiddle the system. For certain crimes, if a custodial sentence is handed down, it is served in the county gaol. More severe sentences mean time in a state prison; apparently, it’s always a better idea to commit a federal crime than a state crime, in the US.

    Well, California simply reduced the status of a swathe of offences, meaning that fewer convicts ended up in the prisons. Conversely, more remained in the local gaols, meaning that the latter are now bursting at the seams. That, in turn, results in crimes going unpunished, with the police discouraged from even making arrests in many cases. Making an arrest was already a dangerous business, with official anti-police bias adding career-ending risk. If a police officer is now likely to see the man he just arrested released without charge, because the county is already over-quota for that ethnicity this week, he has very little incentive to make similar arrests in future.

    It’s no surprise that, wherever political correctness supplants professional law-keeping, crime only ever goes up, which would be utterly bound to happen here, if we were daft enough to take seriously Lammy and his plagiarists’ charter.

  13. It is faintly amusing that this country encourages ‘multiculturalism’ on the basis that ‘diversity’ is an unchallengeable good.

    Then in the next breath as it were, vast swathes of public policy are predicated on the basis that everyone of whatever ethnicity is equally capable and inclined when it comes to entering into some area of employment or other aspect of British life.

    This is the case even though there is abundant evidence that the various ethnicities do not share equal abilities or inclinations. Islam, for example prefers women to stay at home and have babies rather than enter the job market.

    If the proportion of individuals of any given ethnicity in any area of life does not reflect their number in the country as a whole, the assumption then is that this is due to some kind of oppression / injustice on the part of the majority white population.

    Of course, this is only the case when the proportion is less in some desirable area of life such as socio-economic standing and more in some less desirable aspect, such as criminality. If the proportion of a minority ethnic group is more in some desirable areas of life or less in some undesirable aspect, this thinking is conveniently ignored. For example, Chinese people are more law abiding than any others and also highly successful socio-economically..

    Public policy in this country is based on the on going lie of equality in all things, so Lammy’s ludicrous report is to be expected, as is the reverence which will be accorded it by our dim &/or gutless &/or self-serving rulers.

  14. “treatment of black, Asian and ethnic minority (BAME) people in the criminal justice system, Labour MP David Lammy tells us that their trust in the CJS is low.”
    It isn’t very high amongst the rest of the population either so why should they be singled out?
    Ask Tommy Robinson what he thinks of the CJS as a white man?

  15. It is simple anti white racism. Lammy wants an equal number of whites arrested so that the prison population represents the breakdown of national population stats for each ethnic demographic. What he wants is not one law for all….as usual with these lefty idiots it is a call to “let off” certain elements of “his” community as they are not capable of following the social protocols the law deems necessary. Just like Travelers, Muslims etc etc the problem never lies within those communities….it lies within the communities who do not break the law or look to stand outside the social protocols expected of them. The following excuses are always peddled:

    – Poverty. Despite many poorer people happily living within the social framework other poorer people seem to be unable to manage to.

    – Racism. The fact they are caught and tried fairly becomes racist due to the fact they have ben caught and prosecuted.

    – They don’t understand or are “vulnerable”. This can be applied to any situation you like and used to excuse behaviour. We are then supposed to feel sympathy for the perp as opposed to the victim. Perverted stuff.

    – Their culture needs to be respected. Even if it causes issues, those issues are caused because we are not respecting their culture and way of life enough. It is society again that is at fault, not the perp. Perverted again.

    Lammy falls, as many before him have, into this game of “excuse bingo”. Rather than deal with the issue of upbringing for social demographics, or religious indoctrination caused by massive peer pressure from others, he whittles on about “injustice”. We have seen the extremes of these ideals in South Africa where whites are now routinely hunted and killed…why….because the “David Lammy’s” have won the argument there and the idiots have control of the asylum. Notice how our left wing press rather focus on the Muslim insurgents being given a sound thrashing in Burma…trying to make them into victims too.
    Till we have reporters who will tear these arguments to they deserve to be…we will be stuck getting mind raped by these idiots…and the guy Lammy is a bloody idiot.

      • Indeed. Lammy seems unaware of this concept. It is as racist as “positive” discrimination…which is anything but positive to those missing out on jobs due to not being part of the right “culture”, or having the right coloured skin.

  16. Have the Labour Party made any statements about the gross abuse of under privileged Sikh and White children usually in care by Ethnic Minority (Muslim) Males, other than to excuse it?
    Until they do I do not care one iota what the BAME view of the CJS is.

  17. The recurring theme from these ‘Inquiries’ is the same: ‘not my fault’.
    David Lammy would do his people a far bigger service by expressly blaming them for their actions and requiring that they, not everyone else, changes their tune.

          • Of course it is, for them. It couldn’t possibly be that they are less intelligent or have another problem, could it?

        • A fair point but I think you are giving him far to much credit for being the champion of his people. In my experience and observation people look after there own interests irrespective of what they seem to be doing and you should run very quickly away from someone who says they are doing it in your interests!

    • Not all black people feature in these statistics (black women are nowhere near so highly represented and some black ethnicities feature less than others– most appear to be Afro-Caribbean men), therefore Lammy should not make the generalizations he does.

  18. There has been a similar discussion in the USA where it was alleged that the black population was being treated unfairly by the law enforcement authorities.

    This allegation was comprehensively demolished by a statistical investigation by the New Century Foundation, published in ‘The Color of Crime’ :

    Color of Crime – Solar General
    New Century Foundation. 2717 Clarkes Landing. Oakton, VA 22124. (703) 716-0900. The Color of. Crime. Race, Crime, and Violence in America …

  19. Take the figures for Black crime in the US.
    50% of violent homicide is perpetrated by just 6% of the population: Young Black Males usually against other black males.
    The Liberals in the US would have you believe this is all down to racism and they actually infer that those killings were not committed by Blacks and the police just arrested the nearest black man!
    Nothing to do with the toxic sub culture of gang violence and victim-hood prevalent in those communities or an average IQ of 85.

    • If you follow Thomas Sowell then you will know his view that it is in fact the Fascist Left over the past 50years so which has destroyed Black lives and their culture

      • Thomas Sowell is an intellectual and prophetic giant! And yes, your’re right. A worrying portion of black American culture today has abandoned the family, the Church, education and co-operative economics over the last 50 years. A tragedy for black American children, particularly those being shuffled into substandard government schools.

        • The Welfare State in the USA is the reason. It has destroyed the Black American family by ensuring that the State is preferred to males as a provider to black mothers.

          This also suits many males also living in welfare who get what they want and then desert the results, leaving offspring without reliable male role models.

          Around half of people in the USA are now net recipients of welfare. A lot of it paid out of borrowed money as in Britain.

          • Welfarism is the plague of the UK, I’m surprised it so prevalent in the US.
            I know personally, via work, two persons who have been living on
            welfare for decades.
            One woman lives alone in a 3 bedroom council house. The adjacent ones
            have been sold& are worth c£350,000.
            When she expected a visit re the Spare Room Subsidy
            “bedroom tax” to the BBC, she moved her 40 year old son in for a couple
            of months.
            Our corrupting welfare system has been a magnet for the idle, including
            “There are three great evils Ignorance, Poverty & Idleness
            And of these the greatest is Idleness.”

      • I love Chicago.
        But black Chicagoans have told me never to visit the South Side.
        They avoid it.
        Tragically, recently a black family, who never let their daughter out
        on the South Side Streets gave her a birthday party in their living room.
        She was shot dead by a stray bullet from some teenage gangsters outside.
        Going soft on black criminals, as in the UK, means that decent black families
        are not protected.
        How many liberal judges or “human rights” lawyers live in areas infected
        by black gang violence ?
        How many send their progeny to state schools in such areas ?
        Answer. None.

  20. Lammykins had already written his report before he had even started.

    As Kathy says, he was given the headline by the now, not well aged word traps , which May
    uttered when entering Downing St.

    Both offered lazy superficial analysis which played to who? certainly not voters

    The London Standard ought to be renamed the London stab gazette

      • Rather. But then we regard almost all Tories as left wing, in our terms. It’s why this site is such a breath of fresh air, makes us realize that there are actual conservatives in Britain. Part of the reason, I think, is that when we were getting going, we wrote it down in documents that are hard to overturn, and can be referred to. That’s why we saw the parallel so clearly between Brexit and our Revolution. It holds in most areas, and explains why we tend to be a bit more effective. Ink on parchment is a wonderful thing!

  21. You know what’s coming next.
    Banning any statistics that take account of race, ethnicity or religion as they do in the more progressive states of Europe when they become counter to the PC narrative.

  22. Although I can no longer find the source I have read that the world over Black people are treated more harshly by the ‘justice’ systems, and ‘Asian’ Muslims more leniently.
    For reasons of Fascism the UK no longer keeps any records of crimes by ethnicity – to prevent the people learning the awful truth, so I have had to base my opinion on observations, and I can report that yes there really is a two tier justice system in Britain, and the Muslims are treated much more leniently than others.

    As an aside does anyone here recall Lammys performance on celebrity Mastermind? One I think he’d rather we all forgot about

    • If Muslim men will be treated the same way as white men, full 1/3 end up in jails in one generation. And what would be your options then? Declare that people are not equal, and can’t be made equal due to the differences in their genes, and some are just more violent? Nah, we can’t do that. So we must treat them differently.

        • You can’t deport, say, British citizens of Pakistani origin without breaking the foundations of the political and legal framework of the UK first.

          And in case you do – it will set up a precedent, so the voices will be raised saying “What should we do with, say, Caribean blacks?”

          • This is not true as Germany has been deporting criminal migrants for some time. They are also deporting the second generation born in Germany, and the Human Rights court has upheld their right to do so.

            If Germany can do it then the UK can follow suit.

          • Can you please provide a link? I am not asking for the proof because I doubt your words, I am really interested in how legal nitty gritty works in this case.

            I mean, from international law perspective, you are unloading German citizens to, say, Afghanistan with no passport or citizenship. How this even works, unless the receptive country is a failed state where nobody bothers about such things?

          • I hope he does, I’m interested as well. Likely has to do with vagaries of citizenship laws. Here (US) if you are born here, you are a citizen, but that’s do to one of the post Civil War amendments. There are countries where it is nearly impossible to become a citizen (one I think is Switzerland) and not all confer citizenship merely for being born there. Our debate on illegal immigration implies that we don’t have to, either. Like the UK we have a lot of people who come in to have their kids, and forget to leave, that part may not be as true for the UK.

          • Many British citizens of Pakistani origins have dual citizenship. So off they go to Pakistan, and revoke British citizenship.

            If people of other beliefs break our laws with impunity because of those beliefs they should NOT be treated differently to any other criminal. If there are as many of them as you envisage, then their religion should be proscribed or they should be deported. Especially those who are here illegally.

            This country’s legal and political foundations were built on a precept of civilisation. That does not include being taken over by barbarism.

          • I am not against the method; I just think it is impossible to apply to any numbers big enough to make a difference.

            > This country’s legal and political foundations were built on a precept of civilisation.

            Unfortunately, I can’t agree with that. Some inherently Western ideas validate what you call “barbarism” as valid and equal to the Western culture itself. Cultural relativism, nihilism (caused by the death of Christianity and medieval mindset), “noble savage” cultural archetype, etc.

            Furthermore, we live with “human is a blank slate” premise that was postulated by Locke which effectively says that as people are entirely malleable, the only difference between you and a person from the rural bits the Middle East that holds a mindset of 14th century peon is caused only by the lack of education and economic possibilities for the later. If you stick to that premise (I do not), it is logical to assume that those differences can be easily bridged by education and some wealth redistribution – something that the UK and the other Western nations try to do now.

    • Yet they’re keen to know your ethnicity when it suits them – like when I had to take my wife to A&E this weekend over something which was thankfully not as serious as we thought, but they still thrust a multi-page questionnaire in her face – two items it went to town on were “ethnicity” and “sexual orientation”.
      When people go to A&E they have other things on their mind than intrusive, and PC-oriented bin fodder. I thought the NHS had no spare cash?

      • Maybe if the NHS cut out irrelevant junk from their forms, they could save cash…? No, that would be too easy.

    • Yes, and it shows his inflated idea of his own intelligence that he even went on that programme. And it shows what rubbish we get in HP.

  23. So the problems within the black community and the symptoms are pretty much the same in the US and UK. You will probably find similar stories across other Western countries and you don’t need to look far in Africa or the Caribbean/South America for examples either.
    At some point you need to start looking at yourselves and not blame everyone else.

    • > At some point you need to start looking at yourselves and not blame everyone else.

      The problem is, once you accept that there is a problem, and it’s not environmental in nature (i.e. it’s not a dreaded racism), you’ll have to do something about it. Like, maybe declare that whatever inequality there is, it is justified. And such a precedent opens a big can of worms.

    • Did/do different tribes in Africa co-exist peacefully? Did white English in years gone by sell their own into slavery?

      • Rhetorical questions I assume?
        I am not really interested what anyone did in the past, I am interested in what they are doing now!
        Are you seriously going to go down the road of arguing equivalency?
        When Barbary slavers turned up on the Cornish coast the locals were not selling war captives to them!
        The slaves sold to Europeans and Muslims (yes that trade was even larger) was from stronger tribes preying on weaker ones and from inter tribal conflict. Even the Africans themselves had slaves. So it would seem that like most humans, conflict was endemic and the noble savage myth, just that.

        • Where on earth do I argue equivalence?

          “Did/do” implies that the Africans have not fundamentally changed; they are still essentially tribal, with all that follows. Hence the current state of most “independent” African countries.

          And I did say that the English did not sell their own into slavery.

          Please read my comment again.

          • I apologise if I have mis-read the intent of your comment but as rhetorical questions they are ambiguous as to what point you are trying to make and could be read either way.

          • I should have put Yes after the first and No after the second rhetorical question! Sometimes the points seem so clear to oneself that one loses any clarify over expression. Too pithy for my own good!

          • A comment thread, much like texting, contains very little information beyond the written word, lacking any form of nuance that talking or facial and body language would give, so I think we have all been guilty at some point of not quite transferring what is in our mind to the mind of the reader.

  24. Of course, this was anticipated by the Sentencing Advisory Board that recommended that ethnic origin and schooling must be factored in to mitigate sentencing against BAME defendants.
    So much for equality before the Law.

  25. I am afraid that Lammy and others who look through the same distorted prism are actually a major part of the problem rather than the solution. Rather than excusing the disproportionate criminality of BME youths by claiming it is the result of racism (the ever handy but totally lazy excuse for any negative trait in minority communities) he would better serve both them and us by challenging the dysfunctional social model in the upbringing of too many black “families”, which are more often than not single parent households with multiple children of different absent fathers. That proves a useful background for gang membership recruitment which is the root cause of the crime figures and conviction rates to which he objects. Too many politicians pander to the sensitivities of race relation “experts” by refusing to point that out.

    The irony of course, as the article rightly highlights, is that BME youths are also disproportionately represented in the tragic list of victims of this violent crime epidemic in our inner cities. Unless the nettle is grasped (and yes, I’m looking at you too Mrs May) and the blame placed where it actually belongs and not at the feet of those struggling valiantly to tackle it on the street by always playing the race card on them, the only real losers will be the black community which will see the carnage among their young people continue.

    • This is the key point. Telling young black men that the only reason they are in jail is because they are victims of racism, is an effective way of getting more of them in jail. Unless Lammy succeeds in his crazy scheme of keeping black criminals out of jail, in which case the crime statistics will go even higher through the roof than they are already.

    • Has he yet found all the bodies he alleged the Government spirited away after Grenfell. He didnt see them personally but people in ‘the community’ said they saw them and he believed them

  26. What does Mastermind Lammy suggest to remedy the apparent over representation of coloured players in the Premier Leage?

  27. Someone should call out Lammy on his retarded Marxism. He couldn’t keep his constituents from looting and burning London to the ground, he never apologised for that.

  28. Richard Garside has the type of subversively anti-white British attitude that gets rewarded in academe. In all my time in London, almost all direct physical threats to my person have been by black men. Not Middle-Eastern, Asian, Oriental, white. I won’t bore you with the details but here’s one incident. Got on a train, saw a spare seat next to a young black guy. This bloke refused to move his leg in as I went to sit down. I sat down anyway, and started reading a paper. He aggressively pushed his leg against me, asking ‘why are you sitting here?’ I said I can sit on any seat I like. He seemed amazed by this, replying ‘Are you stupid?’ He genuinely thought that I should be scared of him./ When he started his pushing again, I told him to stop. A guard on the carriage came up to me, and asked me to move! The black guy snorted in victory.
    Garside should watch some clips of Notting Hill Carnival – would such behaviour be accepted by white men at a music festival? Garside was probably there, sharing his white shame.

    • What reason did the guard give for you to move? I don’t think I would have been so compliant but then again I am 6’2 and stocky.

  29. The question is why is such fallacy seemingly widespread amongst the ruling classes?

    I think Ben Shapiro’s arguement debunking this nonsense still holds true. I certainly haven’t heard a cogent alternative point of view.

    The opponent is trotting out the usual “the judicial system is racist because a higher percentage of minorities are arrested, etc”.

    Ben states by logical extension that because the majority of people in prison are men, the judicial system must be sexist”…

    The opponent then comes back with “there are external factors, like most crime just happens to be committed by men”…


    • Because so many of the ruling classes are Long Marchers, have been indoctrinated by them or are scared of standing up to them.

  30. The uncomfortable conclusion (for some) is surely that as a result of differing evolutionary adaptation to different environments, groups of humans have evolved in different ways. These conclusions seem to be quite unthinkable for some people and thus they, er… stop thinking.

    Could differing testosterone levels, differing degrees of impulse control and varying IQ’s among certain groups affect their likelihood to commit violent crime? The prima facie answer seems to be in the affirmative.

    • Such genetic inheritances can be sublimated, even become virtues,
      if non Indigenes are encouraged to integrate & share the values of their
      adopted countries.
      Check out A Troublesome Inheritance by Nicholas Wade.
      This book upholds what I suggest history shows us
      i.e. Over the centuries close nit/inbred communities can transfer specific
      aptitudes or behaviours genetically.
      I maintain that such behaviours may be undesirable, but they can be canalised.
      Seeing black boxers knocking the hell out of each other for a white audience
      discomforts me. But think what the brute Mike Tyson would have done without
      Ellington, Martin Luther King etc were great achievers within mainstream
      America. Anyone who encourages rap & the like is fulfilling the KKK’s
      predictions as to what emancipaton would lead to.
      Hold everyone to the same standards.
      Not doing so is racist.

      • Wade’s book is a far better review of the state of things than the tedious ‘Bell Curve’.
        Both of course are deemed ‘Hideously right wing’ by the demented people who rule us.

    • I think they are not unthinkable but utterly unproven and its far more likely that other factors are at play like environment – including the behaviours of others in society towards young BEM Males – and cultural factors within the BME community including factors that reinforce all these. Some young white or asian males are just as dysfunctional and violent

      • There is a high correlation between IQ and criminality, single motherhood and a range of other factors right down to smoking habits.

        IQ has been shown to vary between racial groups. The Bell Curve highlighted the British psychologist Richard Lynn’s 20-year survey of the global pattern of IQ scores. He found that Orientals in the Pacific rim to have IQs in the 101-111 range, Whites in Europe to have IQs of 100-103 and Blacks in Africa to have IQs of around 70. Other studies have put this latter figure at around 80.

        The IQs of Black people in White societies has been shown to rise with the proportion of white blood they have. Mixed race American Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, and this level is the same in similar circumstances wherever it is measured world wide.

        There are differences in personality between racial groups. Racial differences in personality are found using tests such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire.

        Orientals everywhere are less aggressive, dominant and impulsive than Whites and Whites are less so than Blacks.

        Blacks have higher self-esteem than do Whites or Orientals. This is true even when Blacks are poorer and less educated.

      • There’s no doubt that black male street culture is a massive fail, and the rampant absence of fathers in the black community is also a critical issue. It would be absurd to dismiss these., albeit many politicians seem content to do so. Also some white and asian males are just as feral, but so what? Trends are what is being discussed. But to dismiss the evolutionary effects of things like IQ on population groups (again not individuals) is likely driven by wish-thinking. As to this idea that black males are victims because they are treated differently, this is the slightly more intellectual version of Ali G’s “is it cos I is black”

  31. There is a good letter in the ‘Times’ 12 September from a former Judge writing from Nottingham, He says that like other judges he never distinguished between races when imposing sentences for the same crime. He did however sometimes apply leniency to black youths whom he judged had had a difficult or violent upbringing, so if anything he learned towards lesser sentences for some of them.
    See also Melanie Phillips’ article in the same edition of the ‘Times’ which covers the same ground as Kathy Gyngell’s article. It is worth reading both of these critiques of David Lammy’s new paper. Melanie Phillips shows how he misuses some statistics quite seriously.

  32. Let’s indulge Mr Lammys enormous intellect for a moment. Is he proposing that depending on your skin tone we allow say up to three murders maybe some drug dealing and the odd burglary before the Police deign to notice? The darker you are the more crimes you should be allowed to commit Scot free as it were? Or is he asking us to lock up the pale faced now to save time later?

    Wouldn’t he have been happier in a kind of reverse Rhodesia?

    Quick take that blindfold off of Lady Justice or have the BLM morons against Monuments lot destroyed her already . On the basis that she might have been a bit slavey?

  33. The net impact of Lammys recommendations would be simple. The CJS would discriminate against young white me. Is that really what he wants? And isnt it worrying that it was reported on the day he published that the CPS issued a statement in support? Is this really true?

  34. I must admit I haven’t bothered engaging with the material. I just can’t take Lammy seriously, he’s massively out of his depth.

  35. All those whining in support of Lammy’s supremely racist conclusions clearly have little appreciation of the processes especially in the Juvenile Courts to bend over backwards to keep every petty felon out of institutional constraint. Indeed, one of any colour has to be very, very bad to get banged up.
    Applied to the big boys Courts, the reason why there is a numerical disparity between percentage in ordinary population to prison population is, again, remarkably simple. BAME defendants have a bad habit of committing offences of high sentence tariff. As such, they therefore receive legal aid and plead “not guilty”, thus inflaming the sentencing outcome.
    Whether this is due to poor parenting is an obvious consideration but is an excuse…and undoubtedly already considered when allowing the accused “another chance”, usually foresaken and after which the accused finally ends up in clink.
    Lammy should be ashamed of himself but, as a Labour MP, what can we expect.

    • Do they plead “not guilty” when clearly guilty and likely to be found guilty, because predominantly white, legal aid solicitors, do not seek to persuade them otherwise, as the legal aid fees roll in? Is another factor their lack of worldliness and education in a self perpetuating system where other poorly educated black prisoners are their only other advice resource?

      I think so.

      • I haven’t practised during the current Legal Aid regime but all LA work is undertaken by panel members only. If it were apparent that a practitioner was habitually running no hope defences, it is likely that the franchise would be withdrawn. It doesn’t matter what colour you are, if you run a hopeless defence you’re going to forfeit the court’s sympathy and the discount for an early plea. In the serious cases, a defence is almost expected if only to test the prosecution evidence. Of course, the serious offences attract the greater punishments and distort the ratio of NG pleas.

        • It is a long time since I was prosecuting numerous cases.

          That habit of extracting the maximum out of the legal aid system was engrained in some legal firms.

          Regularly, many cases where prisoners had confessed and were represented at the Magistrates by a straight local Solicitor, and intending to plead, got changed after the prisoner had been on remand in prison.

          They had then been persuaded by someone, to go with another Solicitor, often the same regular ones, who were plainly sweating the legal aid system. It was very often coloured clients , who took that new route.

          Has that changed? I doubt it.

          In consequence those prisoners end up with heavier sentences,

          • I have read about the practice of work acquired by Police station practitioners being lured away by other practitioners after initial instructions. As you say, inducements are given to sweeten the transfer of instructions. Again, I’m sure that certain firms are noted for their willingness to run cases that straight representatives would not. Fortunately, I was never a criminal law lawyer. With LA hourly rates, itisn’t surprising that some firms milk LA certificates. contrary to Lammy’s various assertions about BAME defendants being left with an apprehension of racial discrimination, most are sophisticated repeat offenders who know exactly how to game the system and are abetted by complicit practitioners.
            Unlike Porridge’s Fletcher, they don’t accept imprisonment as an occupational hazard

  36. Obviously to make Mr Lammy feel comfy all the white people should be forced to leave Britain or be put in camps or gassed. That should do away with ‘prejudice’ once for all.

  37. So Ms Gyngell seems to be asserting that black people are over represented in the criminal justice system because they are more likely to take part in criminal behaviour. Is she content with that?
    Perhaps she could let us have the benefit of some of her own logic to explain why this is the case, and what, if anything, we should do to address this.

      • They are obviously more likely to take part in criminal behaviour, as the number of convictions and the number of black victims of black criminals testify. Is that so hard to understand?

        • It’s actually incredibly difficult to understand – that’s the whole reason behind the report. Read it – I will – Im hoping it will prove enlightening. By the way. Your avatar is a picture of a character from a book I read at school called Little Black Sambo – is this because you’re a racist making a juvenile attempt to offend people ?

          • LBS was always one of my favourite story book characters. He behaved heroically and was devoted to his parents and family. The book, and the others by the same author, convey to an English child some of the atmosphere of southern India. I don’t know why you should suspect me of “racism”, but then, you are not alone!

      • I read it carefully. In short she says it is because black people people make poor parents. The solution – they need to pull their socks up. Like most of the material on this site it is a long stream of bitterness and negativity, devoid of ideas, and punctuated with trite platitudes.

          • I don’t know who Shaun Bailey is, but I don’t think anyone is likely to mistake Ms Gyngell’s crude dog whistle racism for President Obama.

          • Shaun Baily is a very sensible black Briton who has stood for the Tories in the last election & believes, like Obama, that blacks should speak standard
            English, work hard at school & shun crime.

          • That Shaun Bailey – you mean the one who has said we are ruled by an elitist Old Etonian clique that pushed him out of Downing Street? It’s all very virtuous isn’t it – we should all work hard, speak standard English and shun crime. Oddly enough my black friends all do just that. Strangely enough they also all believe that the criminal justice system is biased against black people, in most cases based on personal experience of stop and search. Silly billies eh?

  38. Foreigners are entirely welcome to move to another jurisdiction where they have greater confidence in the criminal justice system.

    And if they want to take that fat ignorant wayciss booby Lammy with them, so much the better.

    • ‘fat ignorant waciss booby’ – Well as someone once said – “if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left” – Can you come up with similarly juvenile names to call the rest of the panel : Lord Victor Adebowale CBE; Shaun Bailey AM; Dame Sally Coates DBE; Dame Linda Dobbs DBE; Suella Fernandes MP; David Isaac CBE; Professor Binna Kandola OBE; Baroness Ruby McGregor-Smith CBE; Sir Martin Narey DL; Dame Anne Owers DBE; Sarah Payne CBE; Trevor Phillips OBE; Matthew Ryder QC; Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC MP; Simon Woolley; Baroness Lola Young OBE ????

      • Lammy’s report is essentially special pleading for non whites & accordingly
        I greatly admire Shaun Bailey & hold in contempt the voters of Hammersmith(?)
        who put in a Labour candidate rather than the courageous Conservative.
        Presumably postal voting & personation will ensure Labour holds such
        constituencies ad infinitum. I speak as someone who noted the nature of
        the inhabitants of the area a few days ago.
        They don’t just out vote us, they outbreed us.

      • Yet it is undeniable that Lammy is grossly fat, utterly, ridiculously ignorant, a racist and a booby – so this is not an attack, but a simple statement of fact.

        The list of undeserved honours awarded to a pile of suckers at the teat public might of course impress the naive – or in your case malicious – but no one else.

        So we have another load of anti-English trash slopped up by the enemy within, cordially welcomed by the usual suspects.

        Like I say, if foreign criminals don’t like my country, let them seek out another, and take their pudgy whining shop-steward with them.

      • You once wrote: “Harold Wilson’s statement that “Labour is a moral crusade or it is nothing”. That is my belief – and that is why I’m proud to be a part of that crusade and part of the Labour Party” which pretty much writes you out of being taken seriously here.

        The extreme arrogance in a belief that the Labour party (of all things) is the supreme moral arbitor engaged in a “crusade” is astonishing but also sinister in a kind of creepy national socialist way. You claim to be an atheist. You are not. Your religion is the Labour party’s belief in a “moral crusade” that puts it above other religions and cults. You are no different to any other religious fundamentalist zealot.

        • I don’t off hand remember the circumstances in which I wrote that – but I stand by it. I take all people seriously Colonel Mustard – even ones with different religious and political beliefs to mine.

          Whilst crusade is not a word which has particularly positive connotations in present times – and not one I’d pick myself. I was quoting a man who greatly admire as a statesman and politician, Harold Wilson, and have no doubts whatsoever that he used the term “crusade” in the sense of ‘a strenuous campaign in aid of a cause’- rather than as a holy war to evict Muslims from the Holy Lands.

          I do not, and never have held a belief that the Labour Party (why “of all things” ?) is a supreme moral arbiter. Indeed it would be astonishing if I or anyone else did. Whether it would be sinister in a kind of creepy national socialist way is a moot point, since I didn’t believe that. However since you raise the “national socialist” jibe, I’d point out that Labour is a democratic socialist party and our belief is that through the strength of our common endeavours we achieve more together than we do alone – that’s pretty much it to be honest. No arrogance, nothing sinister, nothing creepy, no religion, no cult, no zealotry, but a fundamental commitment to working together to improve our world.

          • I suggest that neither you nor Harold Wilson would be likely to have reached for “crusade” had you not been raised in a Christian country.

    • As an atheist in MY own country I find your comment repugnant. Unlike you I respect freedom of worship and find Islam and Christianity neither more or less silly than any other religions – but I respect your decision to follow either faith

      • Are you deeply offended? Surely it is my scoping of the Islamic creed you find repugnant? Are you part of that millennial quest to prove you are more compassionate than the next? Do you love a good vigil? The previous Pope described Islam as ‘magnificent’ — Was he an atheist too?

      • England was a Christian country when I was born. There was never any doubt about it then and the establishment was at ease with that. No-one ever asked me or any other English person if we wanted that to change. The change was imposed and gradually, at first through the folly of politicians with no sense of consequence or responsibility for their inheritance, more recently deliberately in pursuit of an agenda conceived outside this realm.

        • I don’t know when you were born, but I suspect it was a while after my Great Grandmother – who like me was an atheist – my family (and I suspect most of the families in the area where I grew up) have been largely secular if not atheist for many generations. The established Church of England has clearly a very prominent place in the political as well as religious make up of the country – I feel that this is to our disadvantage, but I am tolerant and respectful of it. I’m not really sure what the relevance is of an agenda being ‘conceived outside this realm’ is. A lot of very good ideas came from outside this realm.

          • And a lot of very bad ones. But as a Labour party member you can be expected to take a dim view of your own country’s heritage. The Fabians have been at it for generations and your family tradition is no measure of the country as a whole. But like most socialists you presume rather a lot.

          • Do you know you’ve started three sentences with a conjunction there ? If that’s not taking a dim view of the country’s heritage I don’t know what is.

            Thing is Colman, good ideas and bad ideas come from all over the place – I was wondering why you seemed to pre-judge an agenda ‘conceived outside this realm’ just because of that fact. Surely an Agenda is best judged by the quality of its content.

            Why would a Labour Party member be epected to take a dim view of their own country’s heritage ? I’m immensely proud of our heritage – defeating Fascism & Nazism in the second World War, The National Health Service, the Open University,universal suffrage – I could go on forever. It’s not been my experience of the Fabians either, although my membership has currently lapsed.

            My family tradition is no measure of the country as a whole, as you say, but it does give the lie to saying that this country is, or wa, a Christian country – because I know of at least one family that wasn’t.

            “like most socialists” “you presume rather a lot” – do you realise what you’ve just written ?

          • “A lot of very good ideas came from outside this realm.”

            But not Islam, Nazism, Communism or Fascism.
            I also have reservations about Scientology.

      • In theory all religions are more or less silly.
        Islam is, however, a special case.
        Examine its main tenets including the treatment of women, Jews & apostates
        for a start.

  39. If Lammy had been an American an had been a member of the (all black) jury when O.J. Simpson was tried for the murder of his white wife would his views have been any different from those of the other members of the jury?

          • You know perfectly well what the point is. In the O.J. Simpson trial the defence lawyers objected to any non-black person among those called for jury service because they wanted a jury that would be biased in Simpson’s favour. Lammy also wants to bias the system in the same direction.

          • I repeat : He was 12 years old . He wasn’t an American, and wouldnt have been eligible for the jury in any circumstance even if he was. It’s pointless to speculate what he might or might have done, and it is certainly not the case that David Lammy wants to bias the criminal jsutice system.

          • The very existence of the committee and the review is biased. The idea that the justice system should “serve” a particular identity group undermines the rule of law to begin with. Cameron was a silly Prime Minister with silly ideas and this was one of them. Entrusting it to a self evident idiot in the opposition party was indicative of his silliness.

          • The Justice system should serve everyone. If we are finding that particular groups of people are ending up more likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be in prison than other groups, then surely it’s incumbent on the Government to try and stop that – ultimately by getting people not to commit crimes – but it would seem that currently for whatever reason, we’re not achieving that.

            You may well think David Cameron was a silly Prime Minister – but he was democratically elected and chose to commission this report. Personally I think getting David Lammy to do it was a shrewd move.

          • > If we are finding that particular groups of people are ending up more likely to commit crimes, and more likely to be in prison than other groups, then surely it’s incumbent on the Government to try and stop that – ultimately by getting people not to commit crimes – but it would seem that currently for whatever reason, we’re not achieving that.

            There is a group of people that is massively over-represented in prisons. Men. Apparently, nobody does anything about that – instead, we accepted the fact that this specific group is just more prone to violence comparing to the outgroup, women, due to biological predisposition.

            Why can’t we apply the same reasoning to other overrepresented (racial, ethnical, religious, temperamental, etc.) groups and just accept it as a fact of life?

          • Wouldn’t it be more sensible to try and reduce the number of men committing and being convicted of crimes instead ? Or are you saying we should just shrug our shoulders and accept crime in our society ?

          • It is one thing to try to reduce absolute number – which is a worthy effort. It is another to be obsessed with the ratios because they are somehow “unfair”. The report concerned with the later.

          • The “justice system” should serve the rule of law. The identity group politics of your Labour party and its fellow travellers has effectively undermined that.

            Incumbents in the justice system now see themselves as empowered to manipulate the law to serve political ends rather than being subordinate to it. I suppose that is what comes from the arrogant idea that they have a right to “lead beyond authority.

          • It should follow the law – and I think it does by and large.

            Identity group politics of your Labour party has effectively undermined that ? Really ? Just thought you’d throw that in did you ? Where did it come from ? At the moment I’ll just say – No it hasn’t !

            I’m not sure what you mean by incumbents – do you mean the judiciary ? If so then I think that you are well wide of the mark – I don’t think that they manipulate the law, and I don’t think they follow any political ends. I’ve met some pretty arrogant barristers mind – although they were pretty clever people.

  40. You wrtie this article as if David Lammy has just thought “Hey why don’t I put something together about the criminal justice system and how it impacts on BAME people – I could put it in a blog or something, and I don’t know, maybe stick it on The Conservative Woman for giggles”. However that’s not the case – he chaired the review committee, at the behest of the then Prime Minister David Cameron – (and later endorsed by current Prime Minister Theresa May). It was sponsored by the Department of Justice, and given clear terms of reference (they were not his own terms). He assembled a committee of experts – approved by the Secretary of State for Justice. It considered a wide range of evidence and opinion – including from other countries including New Zealand, Canada and USA. It is worthy of thorough reading and I’m sure that it will be considered carefully by the Government.

    I admit that I have had no opportunity to read it fully – but even reading the recommendations, conclusions, and skipping through the sections it’s clear that there is much food for thought in this review. The information regarding ‘plea decisions’ for instance is quite an eye opener. There is far greater chance of black people when charged with the same offences as other racial groups, to plead “not guilty” – when in fact a ‘guilty’ plea could see them with substantially reduced sentences – and possibly charges dropped altogether. The report suggest innovative ways in which charged offenders can take responsibility for their alleged offending prior to making a plea, which would result in fewer prison sentences, and greater trust in the CJS. Far from ‘underlining BAME’s perceived victim status’ it would seem to me that this is an attempt to encourage BAME people to take responsibility for offending. It saddens me to see that this important review is being summarily dismissed by so many who frequent this website.

    • So innovative that the accused takes responsibility for (his) actions and it doesn’t proceed? Aw, come on. We’re talking about serious offences that the sentencing matrices identify as imprisonment is appropriate and for which the Defendant has no compelling mitigation. Lammy’s report was self-serving racist nonsense.
      It confirms Cameron’s and May’s total unsuitability for high office.

      • Well I for one never thought they were suitable – but I think commisioning this review is one of the more sensible things that the Conservative government have done. It’s a fairly well established principle that sentencing guidelines take into account whether the person has pleaded guilty (which also saves very large sums of money, and stress for victims of crimes) or not. The question you have to ask is this – this should be well know to people of all races who end up in court – so why is it that Black people in particularl are less likely to take advantage of it ? They are been offered an equal response – but for whatever reason are not taking it up equally – which is making things worse for themselves, and for the country. The review suggests that they do so because they see their own solicitors acting for them, to be part of the “system” and therefore do not trust them.

        • You are presuming that the BAME defendants arriving before the Courts are “innocents abroad”. Most of them are not unaware of what is going on and how to obtain the best advantage. These defendants end up with the representative they want, based upon recommendation, from ex-cons, gang-leaders, drug-barons, imams. The one’s who do get banged up not expecting it are few and far between, either from their “previous” or due to the severity of the offence. As for suggesting that the legal profession is prejudiced, more likely “jaundiced”.

    • Why should charges be dropped altogether for a plea of guilty? That makes no sense. If the state believes the offence does not warrant prosecution then they should not charge the accused to begin with.

      What you describe sounds like an extension of the current scam of securing easy convictions against soft targets, a statistics game for the benefit of political spin, or perhaps the importing of the horrible American plea bargaining system where people are coerced into accepting guilt under threat of a more severe sentence if they risk gambling with the serendipity of modern courts and judges.

      • Not so – sentencing guidelines are drawn up bearing in mind the likelihood of re-offending, the extent to which the offender accepts responsibility for their actions, and the extent to which they co-operate with the police and others in CJS. If you know that you’re not guilty then clearly you will almost always plead not guilty. If you know that you are though, then maintaining your innocence through a long drawn out court proceedure indicates that you neither regret your offence, or take responsibility for it – you just want to get away with the crime. So a solicitor working with someone charged with an offence will explain this – but fewer black people are taking this up – the report suggests that one of the reasons is that they don’t trust the advice being given to them, and end up serving harsher sentences as a result

        • Before crimes ever get to court, offenders are often offered a formal caution as an alternative to prosecution. In order for this to happen though they need to make an admission of gulit – this is to stop cautions dropping out of criminal record checks – the case of Ian Huntley in the Soham murders being the main part of the reasoning behing this.

          • Formal cautions do not apply in all cases and there is a difference between not proceeding with prosecution and dropping charges which you don’t appear to understand.

          • You are correct – they do not apply in all cases – and I do understand the difference. To answer your earlier point more fully – i can’t really see that there would be many cases where charges would be dropped – but I ‘d imagine there’d be several where prisons sentences might be avoided.

          • One last question before you go Colonel, and before I go to slep – any idea why this site has decided to leave its comments open again ? For a long time they’ve shut them down very soon after publishing – which is a bit of a bore.

            Nice to chat. 🙂

        • What nonsense. There is no “offender” until the state proves guilt or the accused admits guilt. “Co-operating with the police” when accused sounds like the European system of state coercion and police power. In England the presumption is (or was) of innocence until proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” and until Blair and his cronies started undermining that and opening the door to European-type police state “justice” an accused was not obliged to say a single thing, let alone “co-operate”. The onus was entirely on the state and an accused could not be coerced in any way.

          • Yes that”s right – but once a person is found guilty, then it is clear that they could have saved a lot of bother by pleading guilty in the first place. If anyone is arrested they are still not obliged to say anything. It’s usually in their best interests to do so though.

          • The police caution was altered to include an element of coercion “it may harm your defence” etc.

            The idea that a person should be more severely punished for pleading not guilty after being found guilty is abhorrent but typical of the kind of big state encroachment on liberty that New Labour specialised in.

          • I can see your point, but I don’t agree with it. Not really the point though, as that is how the current sentencing guidelines operate. Now I do not pretend to know whether these were brought in by the “New Labour ” Government – but we’ve had 7 years or so of Conservative government – and they haven’t changed it.

            I don’t have a problem with how big the state is. My problem is whether its intentions are good and whether they are implemented well.

        • > they don’t trust the advice being given to them, and end up serving harsher sentences as a result

          Maybe the current political climate made them feel entitled to crime? External focus of control (“racism made me do it”) is usually adopted specifically to avoid responsibility – and sense of guilt.

          • Maybe that’s true – if so then we need to do something to disavow them of such unproductive beliefs – that is part of the point of the report.

          • Well, we can start by dissuading people from publically linking misfortunes of BAME with “discrimination”, or “racism”. That shifts their locust of control toward external, validates anti-social behaviour against the “oppressive system” and polarises the society by dividing it by the oppressor/oppressive axis.

            Alas, this will strip progressives and socialists from their populist tactics of appealing to minorities by victimising them, hence it is not going to happen.

    • See letter in the ‘Times’ 12 September from a Judge writing from Nottingham about his experience of how Judges approach the sentencing of people of different races. He points out they cannot when applying the law distinguish between races when determining sentences. But he did sometimes give a black youth a lower punishment than the crime indicated, when he saw the boy’s broken home background or educational problems, from the reports presented to him.
      See also Melanie Phillips’s article in the same issue of the ‘Times’.

  41. Trouble with communists, is that their equality of outcome ideology cannot be satisfied because it contradicts reality. Therefore they try to make end results fit a model of the world that doesn’t exist and that induces error.

    Lammy though, is just plain thick so he doesn’t need an excuse. He is the sort of bloke who would pour sugar in the fuel tank to make the exhaust smell sweeter. Black people, you really don’t want an idiot like this representing you, he is a walking stereotype and grist for real racists.

    Dianne Abbot is another of these low intelligence quota black representatives, which almost makes one wonder if they are elevated to that position for the sole purpose of bias confirmation amongst the population. Rather than making the case for black aspiration, they actually make it for no aspiration whatsoever.

    • > Trouble with communists, is that their equality of outcome ideology cannot be satisfied because it contradicts reality.

      But equality of outcomes is what comes naturally in a just society given that the premise of tabula rasa is true. Hence…

      • or what T shirt I’m wearing next Thursday multiplied by the number of spines on a porcupine divided by chocolate hobnobs

  42. Dismissive of systemic or institutionalised patterns or causes means youre not looking at the whole picture and therefore showing the same behaviour you’re attacking. Pretty poor observations. The line ‘for which police took action’ actually undermines your whole argument and supports Lammy’s findings. unsurprisingly poor research and weighted arguments.

  43. Lammy is a racist and a race hustler; a card player. A lot of people need to prop up ideas of black and Asian victimhood and white oppression. Mortgages must be paid, food put on the table, kids put through college, career ladders climbed etc, etc, etc!

  44. Why waste time and space discussing the views and conclusions of Lammy. He has absolutely nothing useful to contribute to any discussion – on any subject.

    He is best looked upon as a product and example of the sorry state of our educational and political systems.

  45. The person to watch is not Lammy but Theresa May, who seems to be hell bent on leading Black Lives Matter or more soberly showing that her Conservatives are not the nasty party but support oppressed blacks and Moslems. And she will be outlining her vision of Britain with extensions of hate laws.

Comments are closed.