Tuesday, May 07, 2013

"White flight" comes to Britain

White Britons are 'retreating' from areas dominated by ethnic minorities, a study has revealed.  Analysis of census figures shows that white Britons are leaving areas where they are in a minority and are being replaced by immigrants and other ethnic minorities.

As a result, nearly half of ethnic minorities – 4 million people – live in communities where whites make up less than half the population, the study by the Demos think-tank found.

Demos said the survey showed a 'spiral of white British demographic decline' as white Britons choose to leave minority-dominated areas.

Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the findings should make us 'a little anxious', and were 'not good news for the cause of integration'.

He said: 'What ought to make us a little anxious is the “majority retreat” it has unearthed – white people leaving minority-led areas and not being replaced.'

In 2005, Mr Phillips warned Britain was 'sleepwalking into segregation' as the UK was dividing into 'ghettos' of particular races and religions.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the MigrationWatch think-tank, said: 'This is extremely serious. It is undeniable  evidence that we have indeed been  sleepwalking into segregation as Trevor Phillips warned, and it is the clear result of Labour's mass immigration policy.

'Public dismay at the pace of change in our communities largely explains why so many voted as they did in last week's local elections. The case for a sharp reduction in immigration is now overwhelming; we cannot possibly integrate new arrivals on anything like the present scale.'

Demos said the change was the result of 'white retreat', where departing white Britons are replaced by migrants and 'the natural growth of the minority population'.

Its analysis of the 2011 Census showed 4.6million ethnic minorities – or 45 per cent of the total – live in areas where white Britons make up less than half the population.

More than 600,000 white British Londoners have left the capital in a decade, it was reported earlier this year.  Census figures show that between 2001 and 2011 the level of 'white flight' reached 620,000.  It is the equivalent of a city the size of Glasgow - made up entirely of white Britons - moving out of the capital.

The figures mean that for the first time, white Britons are in a minority in the country's largest city.

At the same time, some rural areas have seen a rise in the proportion of people who describe their ethnicity as 'white British'.

Some 3.7million Londoners classified themselves as white British in 2011 – down from 4.3million in 2001 – despite the city's population increasing by nearly a million over the decade to 8.2million.  It was reported in February that white Britons made up 45 per cent of the city's population, compared with 58 per cent in 2001.

Behind white Britons, the largest ethnic group in London is Asians (18 per cent). Black Londoners make up 13 per cent.

Some 4.1million ethnic minorities live in council wards in which all whites – including foreign nationals – add up to less than half the total. That compares with only a million ethnic minorities – 25 per cent of the total – in the same situation at the time of the 2001 Census.

Such areas include Yardley in Birmingham and several council wards in East and South London, Demos said.

At the same time, it showed more ethnic minority families were moving into 'white-dominated' parts of the country.

There are now just 800 council wards out of 8,850 where the population is 98 per cent white. That compares with 5,000 in 2001.

Mr Phillips said: 'This very interesting piece of research reveals a number of vital findings about how people in England and Wales are living together.

'First, it shows a kind of “Ambridge effect” – a welcome minority advance into areas previously only the preserve of the white majority.

'It also demonstrates a greater degree of ethnic mixing within cities, although unfortunately this appears to be mostly between minorities.'

The 'Ambridge effect' refers to the arrival of ethnic minority characters in recent years into plotlines on the Radio 4 soap The Archers.

David Goodhart, director of Demos, said the survey identified a growing population which is 'geographically separate' and has 'limited familiarity with majority cultural codes'. He added: 'The greater concentration of the ethnic minority population means there is less opportunity for interaction with the white mainstream.'

Eric Kaufmann, a professor at Birkbeck College who carried out the detailed analysis, said: 'These results present a mixed picture. While ethnic mixing and integration is being helped by more minority people moving into England's whitest areas, the most concentrated minority areas are just becoming more so.'


More secrecy in official Britain

Yes, in the end it was a small spat that was sorted out quickly. But the refusal by Warwickshire police to name one of its officers charged with stealing from the force was not just worrying on its own account: the decision highlights an alarming trend in British public life towards secrecy.

On Wednesday, the Midlands force put out a bland statement saying that ‘a 54-year-old man from the Stratford area has been charged with the theft of £113,000 from the former Warwickshire police head-quarters at Leek Wootton.

‘The man, a retired police officer, will appear before magistrates in Leamington on May 22.’  A footnote added: ‘Due to a change in policy, we no longer release the name of an individual on charge.’

As a hue and cry developed at this astonishing statement, the force’s deputy commissioner, Neil Brunton, took to Twitter to try to justify the decision.

The policy, he insisted, ‘was changed recently to align with national policy post-Leverson (sic) and not because of today’s outcome’.

It would be nice if he could spell the name of the Lord Justice who spent a year looking into the Press — and the police.

But leaving that aside, he was suggesting the Leveson report had given the police the right to hide behind a level of secrecy of which authoritarian states behind the Iron Curtain would have been proud.

Within a few hours, mercifully the Crown Prosecution Service had intervened. It named the man as Paul Andrew Greaves.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) said no new national guidelines had been issued post-Leveson on policy towards naming suspects.

Next, the newly appointed deputy police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, Eric Wood, gave his force a public roasting.

Expressing himself to be ‘very surprised’ and ‘extremely disappointed’ by the goings-on, Mr Wood said he’d had ‘a number of robust conversations’ with the police chief.

‘We are committed to ensuring Warwickshire Police operate in  an open and transparent manner, and that lessons have been learned from the mistakes of the past 24 hours.’

The commissioner’s team responded quickly and efficiently, as did the CPS. They should be congratulated. Problem solved? Well yes, on this occasion. But the worrying culture underlying it has not.

Today, the Mail reports 14 police forces — nearly a third of forces in England and Wales — keep secret the names of people charged with criminal offences, releasing them only (if at all) just before those charged appear in court.

This flies in the face of ACPO guidelines that forces should name individuals on the day they face charges. It only increases suspicions that the police prefer to operate under their own rules and in secret.

The point is that a robust and healthy democracy needs guidelines that are consistent and needs to operate in a manner that is accountable and open.

The worst form of abuse of power is when the forces of law and order see their job as not just dispensing the law, but as making it and interpreting it in whatever way they see fit.

By deciding that individuals facing charges should not be named, the police appear to be doing just that.

In one sense, of course, Warwickshire police deputy commissioner Neil Bunton’s claim that things have changed post-Leveson is perfectly true.

When Lord Justice Leveson was asked by the Prime Minister to look into the standards and ethics of the Press, he divided his inquiry into three sections: journalists, politicians and the police.

At the same time, separate investigations were underway into the phone-hacking scandal that precipitated the crisis, and  into corruption in the form of inappropriate payments to the police.

Any form of criminal activity, be it listening into someone’s phone, hacking into a computer, bribery, harassment, impersonation and the like, must face  the full weight of the law. (Once in a blue moon, some of these activities might be justified, for example when they expose serious wrong-doing and are incontrovertibly in the public interest.)

The problem was that some members of the police were so in hock with some journalists, notably at the News of the World, that they turned a blind eye.

Clearly action needed to be taken. A report last year by Dame Elizabeth Filkin said that coppers should not be carousing down the pub late at night with journalists.

But Filkin went further, suggesting that all meetings between police and journalists should be made public, with records kept, and that whistleblowers unhappy with what was going on in their force should not tip off a reporter.

Some of her suggestions were incorporated by Lord Leveson into his report.

The problem with this is that some of the most important stories in the public interest, particularly about corruption within the police, always come through covert meetings with journalists or through whistleblowers and tip-offs.

Post-Leveson, the police have been on the defensive and seem to have interpreted the report as an excuse to become more secretive. This is a deeply worrying trend.

The irony is that they stop at nothing themselves to accumulate information about members of the public, including filming anyone who demonstrates and keeping a log on thousands of people who have not committed a crime.

Yet they hate it when members of the public film them or journalists try to find out what they’ve been up to.

As I stated in my two appearances before the Leveson Inquiry, one of the biggest problems in standards in modern British life is not that the public have been told too much about what’s going on; it is the reverse — the public has not been told enough.

Did we know too much about the bankers who helped to plunge this country into its worst economic crisis since the Thirties while trousering their eye-watering bonuses? Hardly.  Did we find out about what was really going on ahead of Iraq? Do we know enough about who is corrupt in public life?

I am not suggesting we should be told what the police are up to every waking minute. It is vital to balance the public’s right to know, on the one hand, with a suspect’s presumption of innocence on the other.

This is of such grave importance it is for judges or Parliament — not individual police forces — to determine.

For example, if someone is taken in for questioning — whether for a minor shoplifting offence or sex abuse — should their name be released?

What happens if the police and the CPS decide not to press charges for lack of evidence? Or if it is a case of mistaken information or identity?

By releasing a suspect’s identity under those circumstances, their name could be blackened for good.

But it is surely different when a suspect is charged. The threshold set by the Crown Prosecution Service for charging someone, in terms of the prospect of conviction and the public interest, is high.

Of course, that still means many people who go to court will be found not guilty.

There might be a tiny minority  of cases where, even when charges are made, a name  should not be released. But I struggle to think of the justification.

What is certain is that, by naming someone charged with a crime, witnesses can be encouraged to come forward with more evidence.

This is apparently what happened in the case of It’s A Knockout presenter Stuart Hall, who has admitted to indecently assaulting 13 girls, one of whom was nine.

His lawyers cited Lord Justice Leveson’s report in their attempt to keep his name hidden.

But after it became public when he was arrested in December last year in relation to three offences, more witnesses came forward and many more offences were uncovered.

The idea that a police force can unilaterally decide not to reveal a name, as Warwickshire police did, particularly when it  involves one of their own, is quite simply an affront not only to justice but to democracy itself.


The Slippery Slope of Gender Identity

Your 9 year-old daughter runs out of a public swimming pool shower, crying because a 45 year-old naked man is lounging in the sauna, "full monty." You call the police. The police arrest you for violating the man's rights and send both you and your daughter to "behavior modification counseling."


Because even though the man's "birth assignment" is male, he "identifies" as a female and you have violated his rights under your state's "gender identity equality" laws.

If you think this is just crazy and nothing like this could possibly happen in America, stop reading now and go back to the comfort of your Doonesbury cartoon. In Washington state, half of this scenario has already played out.

Late last year, a parent called the police after her daughter walked into a locker room and observed a naked man using the sauna. According to the police report obtained by Campus Reform, the transgendered man in question, a 45-year-old Evergreen State College student named Colleen Francis, was "sitting with her legs open with her male genitalia showing" with girls as young as six years old present.

Police, however, were advised by the local prosecutor's office that "criminal law is very vague in this area and it would be unlikely they could pursue charges."

Oh, how quaint those days when such behavior was considered "indecent exposure."

Evergreen State College spokesman Jason Wettstein told Campus Reform that the school must "follow a non-discrimination policy with the state."

"State law doesn't allow us to ignore gender identity disorder as one of the protected classes... therefore the transgendered individual has the right to use our facilities, including the locker rooms," he added.

If you're somewhat bewildered by the phrase, "her male genitalia," you don't understand the definition of "transgender," which is a term used to refer to "people whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth."

The politically correct phrase to describe a boy, girl, man or woman is not "boy, girl, man or woman," but one's "assigned sex at birth," as though every human's genetic makeup is now some social designation created by committee.

So, what about charging the man with indecent exposure?

The police report specifies "criminal law is very vague in the area and it would be unlikely they could press charges."

Right now, California assembly members Tom Ammiano and Toni Atkins, along with state senators Ricardo Lara and Mark Leno, have co-authored a bill to "require" public schools to permit students to participate in sports and "use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil's records."

"Facilities" includes everything associated with, say, a swimming pool, including showers and sauna.

You are to presume that only those who truly feel they're living in the wrong bodies will benefit from these laws, not perverts who will use them to their advantage. After all, we all know pedophiles never choose careers or use devious means to get close to children, so don't even think that these lawmakers are aiding and abetting such molesters.

The truth is, there truly are men and women who don't identify with their gender.

It's a reality that does require tolerance and understanding. If public policy needs to be made to accommodate the transgendered, these "bathroom bills" are certainly not the solution.

Is it too late to find a more reasonable solution?

It seems the only fix is replacing the lawmakers enacting this legislation.

For them, it's bigoted for you to even consider a grown man who identifies as a woman exposing himself to little girls to be a problem. It's a matter of civil rights.

Colleen Francis defends himself, telling local television news station KIRO-7, "This is not 1959 Alabama! We don't call the police for drinking from the wrong water fountain!"

Ms. Francis forgets that Martin Luther King kept his pants on in front of little girls.


Media obsession with homosexuality

Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III started tongues wagging when he posted this cryptic message on Twitter: "In a land of freedom we are held hostage by the tyranny of political correctness."

This was in response to liberal activists showing their rabid intolerance by demanding, so obnoxiously, that the Washington Redskins be renamed the "Redtails." But the sentiment absolutely fits the reaction to professional basketball player Jason Collins proclaiming, "I'm black and I'm gay" in Sports Illustrated.

What? A gay athlete? Stop the presses!

This, somehow, was the largest news in the known universe. The "announcement is a monumental step towards greater equality," tweeted the lobbyists at the Human Rights Campaign.

With enormous ardor, on cue the news networks and sports networks fell all over themselves declaring this was world-historic. NBA stars like Kobe Bryant not only declared their support but bashed the "ignorance" of people who would disagree. People even wanted ESPN reporter Chris Broussard fired for having the unmitigated gall to declare an opposing view on that network, which he did eloquently:

"Personally, I don't believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you're openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that's a sin. If you're openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that's walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ."

Many, if not most, Americans believe exactly that — but they are supposed to be silent. Their views are, let's face it — Christian.

Kelly Dwyer at Yahoo! Sports tried to say it's a free country, but not on some "historic" occasions, and certainly not on ESPN. "The last thing (gay young men and women) need to see is someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in 'open rebellion to God.'"

Leftists are very good at arguing from intimidation that any expression of an orthodox religious opinion on homosexuality is like handing a loaded gun to sensitive youth who think they fit on the "LGBTQ" spectrum. It's just a fancy way of saying "Shut up or the suicide is on your hands."

At the sports blog Deadspin, John Koblin was also furious that an opposing view surfaced. "How did a special hour-long edition of Outside the Lines, devoted to Jason Collins's announcement that he's gay, turn into 'The Anita Bryant Spectacular 2: Live From Bristol?'" Allowing a religious view into the debate was "the total fetishization of opinion."

Washington Post sports columnist Mike Wise argued that Collins wasn't taking a side — it wasn't a "monumental step" for gay liberation? — so he shouldn't be criticized: "Those who took this opportunity to call Collins a sinner are using someone else's personal revelation to attack and play God. Collins did not come out to express his contempt for anyone else's beliefs. So why express contempt for his?"

Wise expressed contempt for the Old Testament, for the Ten Commandments and for conservative religious people: "We will pray for the misguided souls in this whole episode. We have to have faith that they can get better."

One has to wonder if Broussard can keep his job in the face of a left-wing mob that wants this supposed tumor of God talk to be surgically removed from ESPN. It's easy to remember how media pressure forced Rush Limbaugh off the ESPN air as an NFL analyst 10 years ago for expressing the factually true, but politically incorrect thought that the liberal media were rooting for quarterback Donovan McNabb to succeed because he was black.

The Los Angeles Times even submitted this to an online vote: "Should Broussard have said what he said on TV?" Fifty-five percent said it was "fair game," but 45 percent picked "Not the place." Almost half of America prefers "the tyranny of political correctness." Our newspapers are eagerly measuring if the censorship pot has arrived at the boiling point yet.

ESPN then issued a corporate statement of apology to the 45 percent that they'd allowed a debate. "We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today's news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins' announcement."

They regret a "respectful discussion" occurred? Like many media companies, ESPN has made "respectful debate" and "diversity" into antonyms. "Diversity" doesn't mean "diversity of opinions." It means the tyranny of forced agreement or forced silence



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: