Liberal with His Non Sequiturs

By Andrew Brons. Nick Clegg has informed us that there are more black men in prison than there are at the Russell Group of top universities and we are astounded at his prowess as a logician.

Indeed, he was invited to tell us this, not in the corner of a four-ale bar or even a BBC studio but at the annual Scarman memorial lecture.

Mr. Clegg’s invitation and the hushed atmosphere in which his words were listened to had less to do with his faculty for deductive inference, his flair for inductive generalisation or even his statistical literacy and more to do with the fact that he would use the words ‘black’ and ‘discrimination’ in the same sentence.

That, more than adherence to logical procedures, would be a guarantee that his intellect would be recognised and revered.

What Clegg was saying was that a disproportionately large number of black men were in prison and a disproportionately small number of males from the same ethnic group were to be found in the top universities.

He was implying that these facts could be attributed to ‘discrimination’. In fact, there are three possible explanations:

1. That the educational and criminal justice systems are discriminating against black men; or

2. That black men are disproportionately likely to commit  offences that lead to imprisonment and that they are disproportionately unlikely to be eligible to be admitted to the top universities; or perhaps

3. A combination of the two.

A logical approach would be for those, with relevant expertise and access to information, to examine each hypothesis on the basis of empirical evidence and not to leap to a prejudiced conclusion.

Mr. Clegg spoke, with approval, of the positive discrimination that has been operating in favour of ethnic minorities in the public sector.

This had resulted in ethnic minorities in the public sector earning more than public sector workers from the indigenous population. Mr. Clegg clearly saw this as something to celebrate.

However, he was less happy with the fact that ethnic minorities in the private sector earn less than British employees.

It appears that whilst workers in the private sector are paid their market rate, ethnic minority workers in the public sector are paid more than their market rate and white workers in the public sector are paid less than their market rate.

Market rates might or might not recognise ‘worth’ – a subjective concept – but they do at least reflect demand for and supply of (in this case) labour.

It appears that discrimination can be presumed when ethnic minorities receive a less than proportionate share of the good things in life and or a more than proportionate share of the bad things in life.

Such discrimination, whether or not it exists in reality, is self-evidently a bad thing.

However, when discrimination is not simply presumed but is deliberate policy that tries and succeeds in treating ethnic minorities more favourably, it is to be applauded.

Mr. Clegg’s lecture tells us little about crime, educational opportunity or fairness in the workplace. However, it tells us everything that we need to know about Mr. Clegg.

11 thoughts on “Liberal with His Non Sequiturs

  1. During the 1990s, the Commission for Racial Equality paid Oxford University to examine why there were more blacks than whites in prison per capita.

    The unfortunate result – which the CRE did not go out of its way to publicise – was that blacks committed more offences and also tended to make more futile ‘not-guilty’ pleas which led to more prison sentences.

    The current left/liberal puff also puts one in mind of the famous claim that racial attacks were predominantly a white inclination against ethnics. In reality, it was the other way round as regards ‘propensity to attack’. The larger number of racial attacks on ethnics was simply explained by the fact that there were far more whites.

    Statistics are not useless but need careful interpretation. This is not a feature of politicians’ activities when vote chasing.

  2. So the lot of immigrants and people of mixed heritage like Nick Clegg is all the fault of the damn put upon silent majority, who didn’t want or agree to immigration and who are now doing something else wrong!

  3. ‘Mr. Clegg spoke, with approval, of the positive discrimination that has been operating in favour of ethnic minorities in the public sector.’

    This statement rules out any claim to negative discrimination towards blacks. Therefore, blacks are more predisposed to crime than whites. Furthermore, the statement shows that, despite negative discrimination towards whites in their own homelands, whites, who have a legitimate grievance, have been extraordinarily tolerant and law-abiding, despite extreme provocation towards the contrary.

  4. Vaguely related to the matters discussed here, there is an excellent article in Telegraph blogs examining how China has happily stepped in to exploit Africa’s mineral wealth as the Chinese are not hampered by the ‘liberal’ niceties of us white fools. Its well worth a read and I’ll cut and paste it here if that’s ok.



    A Congolese worker watched by a Chinese foreman

    From Saturday’s Daily Telegraph

    Imagine what would happen if America barged its way into a developing country, buttered up its homicidal dictator and agreed a back-of-the-envelope deal in which he signed over his nation’s mineral wealth in return for roads, railways and sports stadiums. Everyone would benefit, no?

    No. The problem is that the infrastructure turns out to be worth a hell of a lot less than the minerals. Fortunately, Washington has had the foresight to top up the dictator’s Swiss bank account. Problem solved! As for the mining operation, the Americans really don’t want to be bothered by minimum wages or trade unions. They’re banned. And no complaints from the workforce, please, because no one wants a repeat of that “misunderstanding” in which an American mine supervisor opened fire on stroppy employees.

    If the United States embarked on this sort of colonial experiment, it would produce a furious “Occupy Grosvenor Square” camp outside the US embassy and a withering play by Sir David Hare at the National. But since these things are actually being done not by America but by the People’s Republic of China across the entire African continent, the “anti-colonialist” Left just yawns.

    Ordinary Africans care, of course. The subject of China will loom large in Monday’s election in Congo, though since President Joseph Kabila has arranged to be re-elected, it won’t affect the result. It was Kabila who approved a $6 billion copper-for-infrastructure barter deal with China. Unfortunately, the sale of state mines has left Congo with a $5.5 billion black hole in its budget. Meanwhile, The Economist reports: “The sale of mining licences at below-market value to firms associated with friends of the president has raised eyebrows.”

    I can’t say it raised my eyebrows. How else do you think China does business in Africa? It suffered a setback in Zambia last year when President Michael Sata was elected on an anti-Chinese ticket. But Sata hasn’t fulfilled his promise to regulate Zambia’s Chinese-run copper mines, branded “dangerously unsafe” by Human Rights Watch. And this week none other than ex-president Dr Kenneth Kaunda was in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People to discuss “deepening substantial co-operation”.

    There’s a school of thought which says that China’s modus operandi, however brutal, at least gets things built. In contrast, Western aid is tipped into dictators’ pockets without anything to show for it. But the benefits of Beijing’s “investment” are elusive, because the Chinese don’t usually employ Africans to perform anything but menial tasks. Chinese construction engineers build motorways and hospitals without passing on the skills to maintain them. The result: everything falls into disrepair within a decade, by which time the copper is safely out of the ground.

    From a moral point of view, China’s policy towards Africa is despicable. But it’s ingenious, too. Beijing has worked out that, by virtue of being a non-Western power, it can pose as a “developing country” while creating its sub-Saharan satrapies. The anti-racism lobby in the United Nations makes sure that the finger of guilt is pointed firmly at the former colonial powers, who are always happy to put on a display of breast-beating by, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Meanwhile, something close to slavery is being quietly reintroduced to the dark continent (which is how China thinks of it).

    For 50 years, it’s been unclear in which direction Africans were heading. Now the question is almost irrelevant: the decision has been made for them.

    Nick Clegg has killed many a dinner party with his disquisitions on “diversity”. But, as Labour MP Chuka Umunna noted this week, the Lib Dems don’t have a single ethnic-minority MP or MEP. That’s no surprise. Any new immigrant knows what Labour and the Tories stand for, but who are those earnest bores wagging their fingers at everyone? And how friendly are they? In 1993, facing a BNP challenge, Tower Hamlets Lib Dems printed a newsletter showing a menacing black man. It pledged to protect “those who endured the Blitz”. The technical term for this is “fighting dirty on the doorstep”. Don’t be fooled by the sandals: Lib Dems are very good at it”.

      1. Cheers BA
        “There have also been riots in Zambia, Angola and Congo over the flood of Chinese immigrant workers. The Chinese do not use African labour where possible, saying black Africans are lazy and unskilled.
        In Angola, the government has agreed that 70 per cent of tendered public works must go to Chinese firms, most of which do not employ Angolans.
        As well as enticing hundreds of thousands to settle in Africa, they have even shipped Chinese prisoners to produce the goods cheaply”.

        I have travelled across Indonesia and I am aware of the persecution of Chinese people there where there have been numerous purges, beheadings etc. The Chinese (with IQs statistically significantly higher than Asians from Indonesia) run a lot of the businesses, are not Muslim and apparently have quite a condescending attitude towards the indigenous Indonesians.
        If I was out in the middle of the jungle somewhere and wanted to get some digital photos put on a disk, it would always be a Chinese business that would be there to do it.

        “Very clever these Chinese” was a catchphrase of my Grandfather about 60 years ago!

        1. Further to the above points I would add that in Jakarta there is a Nigerian community who apparently have established themselves in the drugs and prostitution sector and are despised for this.
          I have also visited Gambia where most of the businesses are appear to be controlled by people of Lebanese descent whom I was told were shipwrecked there sometime previously. Clearly having arrived with nothing, they have already risen above the indigenous Africans. “They sit in the sun and sell” my African guide told me.
          I also was lucky enough to live in vibrant and diverse Peckham for 12 years, where the recently arrived Afghans, Kurds etc sell mobile phones and butchered meat to the African community.
          Yet in guilt ridden white ‘liberal’ la la land African failure is the white man’s burden.

  5. The real discrimination is against white Brits, of course. They are the victims of ‘positive’ discrimination throughout the public sector, of black crime, of asian benefit fiddling, of govt. resource allocation & above all of bogus & negative stereotyping throughout the media, advertising & education system. Missed out politics there with the Liblabcon trick allpouring out their pro colour, anti white drivel.

  6. If there happens to be an overrepresentation of any particular ethnic group in our prisons we should not jump to conclusions but carefully analyse the findings and approach them with complete dispassionate reasoning. Not so for Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems, they immediately conclude that this is absolute and unquestionable proof of institutionalised racism. The Lib Dem conclusion is one that enforces the stereotype of white racism and that all white people must be purged of this evil sin. That all white society has an inherent prejudice that must be countered by a policy of “positive discrimination”, giving an advantage to those who are perceived to be under an institutionalised disadvantage. Given that there is no hard evidence for the theory that these people have any real disadvantage, other than perhaps their own propensity to commit crime and lack of ability to achieve academically, perhaps the privileges granted by this positive discrimination are not in the least bit deserved? How can Nick Clegg be so certain that black men are treated unfairly by society? How is it that he cannot conceive that they are given the same chances as everyone else but are just more drawn to committing crime and not driven to study, even if they did have the ability to succeed? Before jumping to his conclusion I would have looked at the difference between black men in Britain and elsewhere around the world, for instance the USA, European nations and even Africa. Do black men behave in any of these societies in any other way that can clearly show we have a problem with institutionalised prejudice in our nation? He would find that wherever he looks, throughout the globe, the same kind of statistics for over representation in the prison population and under achievement academically hold true. Nick Clegg would probably see this as proof that there is global institutionalised racism. He could never accept that no matter what the circumstances, wherever they live, the simple truth is that a disproportionate number of black men will always gravitate towards crime and away from academia.

Leave a Reply