The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Britain's Late 20th Century Crime Wave
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With the conventional wisdom congealing around Ta-Nehisi Coates’ belief that “mass incarceration” in America was both racist and unnecessary — just look at how low imprisonment rates are in Europe! — it’s worth noticing something that almost nobody in America has noticed: the big property and assault crime wave in Britain in the last part of the 20th Century. That would also seem relevant to the current massive push by the President and the metropolitan media that something must be done about those well-armed rednecks out in the sticks.

You can get clues about the criminal history of Britain from books and movies. For example, when Anthony Burgess published his sci-fi novel A Clockwork Orange in 1962, in which Alex and his droogs motor out into the countryside to commit home invasion on an isolated cottage, the crime of home invasion barely existed in England. Burgess based the incident on something that happened to his wife’s family during WWII at the hands of U.S. GIs. (There’s a lot of social history that’s been swept under the rug about life in England before D-Day as the country filled up with young Americans waiting around to fight the Germans.)

Yet, by 1990 or so, home invasions in the rural countryside were a sizable problem, seemingly much bigger than in the U.S., where homeboys mostly terrorize their own communities.

And then there was the fecklessness of the British police.

There’s a scene in the fine little 2004 British movie Millions directed by Danny Boyle (his latest film is the new Steve Jobs biopic out this weekend). Unfortunately, I can’t find video of the scene online. A family moves into a new exurban housing development in the English countryside. At a gathering of the new homeowners, a policeman addresses them:

I’m your… Community Policeman. Obviously there is no community here as yet, not to speak of, but you know…

Anyway the first thing to say is, these new houses and Christmas coming up. Statistically, you’re going to get burgled. Now, not all of you, but some of you, soon. Probably this week, next.

When you are, call me.

My recollection is that a homeowner interjects at this point to ask if the policeman will arrest the thieves or merely use the information to prevent future crimes. The cop responds to the effect of: Neither:

I’ll give you a crime number and then you can make a claim on your insurance.

This scene apparently baffled American critics and audiences.

From an interview with Boyle in About Entertainment:

Q.: This is a weird question, but in “Millions” the police come and warn the community about the fact they will probably be burglarized during the holidays. Is that realistic?

Boyle: (Laughing) Yes. It’’s silly but there’’s an element of truth in it. Britain is plagued by burglaries at the moment. Everybody is paranoid about it. It’s kind of making fun about it, how it’’s inevitable you’re going to get burgled. And it is if you live in a city. It’’s inevitable you’’ll get burgled. In fact, I live on my own and while I’’m here in America, I’’m pretty convinced I’’ll be burgled by the time I get back.

Q. The scene plays a little strangely to American audiences. The police here don’’t usually come around and tell us to prepare to get burglarized.

Boyle: It’’s maybe very idiosyncratically British, a guy coming around saying that. That gets a big laugh in Britain. People really recognize that copper with that kind of fatalistic approach to crime.

Since the 1990s or so, the British government has been trying to fight back against crime. As Burgess predicted in 1962, they’ve taken a largely technocratic approach. For example, Britain now has a huge number of security cameras.

There is probably a lot we could learn about the British experience of crime. Being dependent as we are, though, in getting our views on crime from Ta-Nehisi Coates, who is, for all his virtues, not the world’s most worldly man, we’re probably not going to be hearing much about it. Maybe if Obama were to appoint Ta-Nehisi Coates as America’s Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Coates could find out about it and tell us.

 
• Tags: Britain, Crime 
Hide 51 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Could be that the immigration to Britain since the 60s has had something to do with its higher crime rate. Continental Europe, as well. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/britains-late-20th-century-crime-wave/#comment-1181153
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. E. Harding says: • Website

    Steve, did you actually read Coates’ latest long-ish article on his race? I read it all the way through, and found it surprisingly awesome:

    http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/coates-refutes-himself/

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    I'd agree with Coates that incarceration is both expensive and, too often, counterproductive. There is a way though to punish most criminals AND limit their ability to commit new crimes without imprisonment however. Blind them. Not permanently but through the implantation of artificial cataracts. They can then be returned to the care of their families or housed in unsecured dormitory style facilities. While some white collar criminals might have to be locked up ( Coates would no doubt approve of that ) the average street thug would be rendered harmless were he blind. In fact his very vulnerability might be the only way to change his behavior and socialize him. No longer could he threaten or commit violence to achieve his objectives. He would have to learn to appeal to people's sense of fair play and decency.

    Five to Ten years of being blind ought to be sufficient to atone for all but the most egregious offenses and the criminal would not be further brutalized by the prison experience. The only supervision they would require would be a periodic inspection to make sure they did not have their 'blinders' removed prematurely and , at the conclusion of their sentence, the blinders would be removed and the criminal, hopefully reformed, sent on his way.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Handle says:

    The now sadly discontinued “coppersblog” used to be the absolute best source on the craziness of UK policing, including plenty of “crime number for your insurance” and “we recommend you use smartwater as a deterrent” (the stuff is big in the UK). You can still find his book though, “Wasting Police Time,” which is often hilarious.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Read Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels), a British prison psychiatrist, and a very entertaining writer, on UK crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gilbert Ratchet
    Not only that, he specifically thinks that Clockwork Orange was accurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    Corruption of labor by unions, lack of competitive innovation in manufacturing, working class collapse, spread of welfare culture, rise of yob culture, legacy of class antagonism(snobbery from top, rage from below), Americanization of both populist and elitist culture, rise of soulless yuppie materialism. And immigration.

    Add them all together, and you have a real problem.

    Initially, the Angry Young Man(of the working class) had the moral advantage against the elite privileged class.
    In the past, the mere fact of class privilege had been enough to make working class masses defer to the upper classes, like Negroes in the South had once understood that they were to defer to whites just because.

    But once the Angry Young Man outlook was unleashed as the new voice of British conscience and righteousness, the hoity-toity upper classes seemed weak and pansy. And as UK lost the empire, the upper class seemed rather silly in all their pretensions. They once commanded much respect as the rulers of 1/3 of the world. Suddenly, they were lords of an island nation that took orders from the US.
    The upper class snobby style that once seemed so dignified now seemed phony.

    After WWII, the main moral issue in UK itself was class injustice. There was the race issue but it was colonial. As long as UK let go of its overseas possessions and came home, that was solved. But in UK itself, the new social order(especially dominated by Labor) led to Angry Young Men with their kitchen sink rage.
    Even so, the Angry Young Men was seeking some kind of meaning and dignity in life. He wasn’t merely a nasty thug reveling in mayhem.
    But that soon changed with the rise of vile punk and soccer thug culture.
    Even so, even the New Angry Thugs had the moral advantage since they stood for class rebellion against the upper classes and elites.

    This was to gradually change with the rise of diversity. The Angry Young Man demanded justice but soon found himself competing with ‘darkie’ immigrants.
    So, there was a lot of conflict between the yobs and ‘wogs’. Angry Young Men saw darkies as invaders, and darkies saw Angry Young Men as ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’.
    As politics came to focus more on race than on class, the Angry Young Men were bound to lose.

    The elites saw an opportunity, at least subconsciously. By making diversity(and then later the homo thing) the central issue of social morality, they could accuse the lower masses of whites of ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’. As public schools made diversity and homo-stuff the main sacred subjects, the issue of class took a backseat.

    And in time, the elites could feel morally superior to lower whites and sneer foppishly, ‘so are you a racist?’

    Lower class whites, being too dumb to realize what was happening, just got defensive and tried to prove they ain’t ‘racist’(and not ‘homophobic’).

    Nowadays, the elites could allow Paki gangs to rape poor white girls but just turn up their noses and say ‘are you a racist’ if any working class Briton were to complain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. You needn’t rely on movies to draw inferences. All you need do is read the British press and commentators like those in the Telegraph and the Spectator.

    The film clip you mention is drawn from real life. Thats why the fatalistic Brit viewers could find it amusing. Again and again I read of burglary treated as a sort of disorderly persons offense. A great many of these are actual home invasions by criminals who rely on two things. The British citizenry no longer have firearms to defend themselves and the state is more than willing to prosecute homeowners who resist too much. How much is too much; surprisingly little. An English farmer defending himself in the dark with an old shotgun was prosecuted and imprisoned on the death on an intruder. He had been burgled over and over but this fact meant nothing to the authorities.

    I know from personal experience that American Criminals fear armed citizens far more than the police. That’s why home invasions are rare here.

    Reading Theodore Dalrymple’s early books gives a good view into the mentality of the British criminal classes, both black and white. They are also instructive as to what we will be up against if Obama and the progressives get full control of the law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    Straw Dogs.

    And Ireland aint much better going by

    The General.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Irishman
    Countryside crime is huge in Ireland since the crash. It's a combination of travelers and the ex-Dublin under-class which was pushed out into neighbouring counties during the boom. When the economy collapsed and welfare was cut these two went to work. The rule of law in Ireland is pathetic. If you're a minor you've nothing to fear unless you get violent. A sub-cause of this is moral positioning toward America and Britain. The Irish political class defines itself as left of Britain and is frankly anti-American.
    This means that non-catholic conservative responses to cultural and social concerns are verboten.
    Canada, Scotland and Sweden(toward Denmark) seem to be similarly dis-armed by their left wing self perception relative to their larger neighbour.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. mikeja says:

    Burglary is a lot worse in the UK compared to US. I always assumed the absence of guns was responsible but maybe it’s policing too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. An Englishman’s home is its home invaders’ castle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Shepton_Mallet#American_military_executions for information on U.S. soldiers excecuted for rape and murder in the UK during WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Gollios says:

    Peter Hitchens has written extensively on the issue. “The Abolition of Liberty” is excellent.

    Britain and the U.S. used to borrow each other’s best ideas. Now, it seems like the worst both have to offer are being exported.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @cwhatfuture
    Read Theodore Dalrymple (Anthony Daniels), a British prison psychiatrist, and a very entertaining writer, on UK crime.

    Not only that, he specifically thinks that Clockwork Orange was accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. unit472 says:
    @E. Harding
    Steve, did you actually read Coates' latest long-ish article on his race? I read it all the way through, and found it surprisingly awesome:

    http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/coates-refutes-himself/

    I’d agree with Coates that incarceration is both expensive and, too often, counterproductive. There is a way though to punish most criminals AND limit their ability to commit new crimes without imprisonment however. Blind them. Not permanently but through the implantation of artificial cataracts. They can then be returned to the care of their families or housed in unsecured dormitory style facilities. While some white collar criminals might have to be locked up ( Coates would no doubt approve of that ) the average street thug would be rendered harmless were he blind. In fact his very vulnerability might be the only way to change his behavior and socialize him. No longer could he threaten or commit violence to achieve his objectives. He would have to learn to appeal to people’s sense of fair play and decency.

    Five to Ten years of being blind ought to be sufficient to atone for all but the most egregious offenses and the criminal would not be further brutalized by the prison experience. The only supervision they would require would be a periodic inspection to make sure they did not have their ‘blinders’ removed prematurely and , at the conclusion of their sentence, the blinders would be removed and the criminal, hopefully reformed, sent on his way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E. Harding
    Only if the blinding is impermanent. And I think prisoners should work through most of their imprisonment. Blinding would make that more difficult, and might make prisoners less productive. Also, blinding would make abuse of prisoners easier.
    , @unam
    this is a brilliant idea. noble for this man/woman please.
    , @Anonymous
    It's an interesting proposal but there's no way it would pass the cruel-and-unusual standard as the SCOTUS would likely interpret it. A less spiritually heavy but still practically effective technique would be administering a paralytic so violent prisoners were wheelchair-bound (of course this would certainly cause some "permanent" damage if maintained for 5-10 yrs). In fact I am surprised a variation of this hasn't already been tried...? Yet we push psychotropic drugs on adolescents who haven't been convicted of anything, in the name of social adaptation.

    Speaking of "Raging Bull"-- it features a notable scene of solitary confinement. I've seen it argued i.e. on the "Law & Order" intellectual level that this routine practice is mind-warping and even akin to torture. Obviously it affects different goons differently, but how long till the bleeding hearts get their way and you can't throw anybody in the hole even as a brief punishment?

    Also in the Washington Post a few years back, a prof from John Jay argued for reinstituting public lashings, Singapore-style, as a way to reserve more prison capacity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. E. Harding says: • Website
    @unit472
    I'd agree with Coates that incarceration is both expensive and, too often, counterproductive. There is a way though to punish most criminals AND limit their ability to commit new crimes without imprisonment however. Blind them. Not permanently but through the implantation of artificial cataracts. They can then be returned to the care of their families or housed in unsecured dormitory style facilities. While some white collar criminals might have to be locked up ( Coates would no doubt approve of that ) the average street thug would be rendered harmless were he blind. In fact his very vulnerability might be the only way to change his behavior and socialize him. No longer could he threaten or commit violence to achieve his objectives. He would have to learn to appeal to people's sense of fair play and decency.

    Five to Ten years of being blind ought to be sufficient to atone for all but the most egregious offenses and the criminal would not be further brutalized by the prison experience. The only supervision they would require would be a periodic inspection to make sure they did not have their 'blinders' removed prematurely and , at the conclusion of their sentence, the blinders would be removed and the criminal, hopefully reformed, sent on his way.

    Only if the blinding is impermanent. And I think prisoners should work through most of their imprisonment. Blinding would make that more difficult, and might make prisoners less productive. Also, blinding would make abuse of prisoners easier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Whiskey says: • Website

    Britain’s anti-Victim bias is merely another outgrowth of its anti-White male bias. Itself a desire by the equivalent of Frau Merkels for Merkel Youth. Bias on the point of non-White thugs victimizing rule following Whites? Why that’s as natural and as expected as sales for Fifty Shades of Grey and Twilight.

    Japan has low crime rates and high regimentation, but then they have little diversity. Try and generate British attitudes towards crime: “lay back and enjoy it” essentially will produce a giant male reaction because outside the effette urban hipster elite who have alternate status signaling, disarming and making ordinary White men helpless is not just a symbolic castration. And will be fought the same, with the same intensity.

    Among other things, 3-D printing of guns is now a reality. So the idea that old, mid-Twentieth Century stuff will work with the Maker Generation is not going to fly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Like America, Britain needs not only More Guns, Less Crime, but it also needs More Whites, Less Crime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. AKAHorace says:

    There were rumours that one of the reasons for the Dieppe raid (military Disaster when Canadians invade France from England in 43) was the disorderly behaviour of Canadian soldiers who were much more violent than the Americans. Had to give them something to do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "skiapolemistis"] says:

    http://www.straitstimes.com/world/german-police-call-for-refugee-segregation

    Integrate Germans with ‘refugees’ but ethnically separate the ‘refugees’ from one another.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. unam says:
    @unit472
    I'd agree with Coates that incarceration is both expensive and, too often, counterproductive. There is a way though to punish most criminals AND limit their ability to commit new crimes without imprisonment however. Blind them. Not permanently but through the implantation of artificial cataracts. They can then be returned to the care of their families or housed in unsecured dormitory style facilities. While some white collar criminals might have to be locked up ( Coates would no doubt approve of that ) the average street thug would be rendered harmless were he blind. In fact his very vulnerability might be the only way to change his behavior and socialize him. No longer could he threaten or commit violence to achieve his objectives. He would have to learn to appeal to people's sense of fair play and decency.

    Five to Ten years of being blind ought to be sufficient to atone for all but the most egregious offenses and the criminal would not be further brutalized by the prison experience. The only supervision they would require would be a periodic inspection to make sure they did not have their 'blinders' removed prematurely and , at the conclusion of their sentence, the blinders would be removed and the criminal, hopefully reformed, sent on his way.

    this is a brilliant idea. noble for this man/woman please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Wilkey says:

    “Burgess based the incident on something that happened to his wife’s family during WWII at the hands of U.S. GIs. (There’s a lot of social history that’s been swept under the rug about life in England before D-Day as the country filled up with young Americans waiting around to fight the Germans.)”

    Much of it the result of black GIs. Of the 96 American soldiers from WW2 buried in the dishonorable Plot E of the Oise-Aisne American Cemetery in France – a cemetery otherwise for WW1 soldiers – eighty are black. All of them were executed then buried in Plot E for the crimes of rape and murder. Though they are buried in France, some of the soldiers buried there, iirc, were executed for crimes committed in Britain. Among those buried in Plot E is Emmett Till’s father, Louis – a fact which was used by Mississippi politicians to turn public sentiment against the younger Till.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Irishman says:
    @Priss Factor
    Straw Dogs.

    And Ireland aint much better going by

    The General.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpIKOgT11wE

    Countryside crime is huge in Ireland since the crash. It’s a combination of travelers and the ex-Dublin under-class which was pushed out into neighbouring counties during the boom. When the economy collapsed and welfare was cut these two went to work. The rule of law in Ireland is pathetic. If you’re a minor you’ve nothing to fear unless you get violent. A sub-cause of this is moral positioning toward America and Britain. The Irish political class defines itself as left of Britain and is frankly anti-American.
    This means that non-catholic conservative responses to cultural and social concerns are verboten.
    Canada, Scotland and Sweden(toward Denmark) seem to be similarly dis-armed by their left wing self perception relative to their larger neighbour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sb
    ...and New Zealand
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. sb says:
    @Irishman
    Countryside crime is huge in Ireland since the crash. It's a combination of travelers and the ex-Dublin under-class which was pushed out into neighbouring counties during the boom. When the economy collapsed and welfare was cut these two went to work. The rule of law in Ireland is pathetic. If you're a minor you've nothing to fear unless you get violent. A sub-cause of this is moral positioning toward America and Britain. The Irish political class defines itself as left of Britain and is frankly anti-American.
    This means that non-catholic conservative responses to cultural and social concerns are verboten.
    Canada, Scotland and Sweden(toward Denmark) seem to be similarly dis-armed by their left wing self perception relative to their larger neighbour.

    …and New Zealand

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Doug says:

    The British sitcom Peep Show also lampooned the casualty of burglaries in England. The main characters’ flat get burgled once, then they catch the teenage thief in the act coming back a second time. They call the police, who can’t be bothered to show up for several hours. They lock him on the balcony, but he calls his mates from his mobile. Predictably a pack of yufs, shows up to the apartment banging down the door well before the police, who’ve already been called several hours ago. They agree to let him go to avoid having their apartment overrun, but letting him out the front door, the mob of teenagers take advantage and clean them out.

    The whole thing is treated as a casual weekend night, and the main characters even have dates over for the duration of the events. No one seems outraged at the police for dropping the ball and the characters basically feel sorry for the criminal. If a similar thing happened in Texas or Florida, the episode would be cut short in the first act as the burglar would have a belly full of hollow points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Uni students move out into private houses in their second year. They generally end up colonising whole streets in cheaper areas. This means that they are prime targets for burglary.

    It is so common at some unis that students don't report it unless they have cleverly paid out for contents insurance. And by common I mean practically a universal experience.

    Property crime is treated very differently in the UK to the US. Here is it considered quite minor, not even something to be reported except for insurance purposes, a cause for comedic resignation. Even in Afghanistan US soldiers could use their firearms to defend US military property from theft whereas it was prohibited for UK personnel to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s no coincidence that Britain had the world’s first – and biggest – DNA database.

    DNA samples are taken routinely from everyone arrested in Britain, even if they are never convicted or are arrested for traffic offenses.
    As hundreds of thousands are arrested every year, and the DNA gathering has been on going for decades, the database holds a huge number of individuals.
    A sizeable proportion of the adult male population is covered, and an even bigger proportion of Britain’s black male population. I venture to say that *most* black males in Britain are in the database.
    Anyway, as we all know from our CSI, once you’re on that data base, an odd stray hair is enough to get you ‘banged to rights’.
    At long last, the guilt of Hanratty, a famous lefty cause celebre was proved. Also, the Geordie ‘I’m Jack’ hoaxer who wasted so much police time back in the late 1970s was caught because of his act of licking a postage stamp, and getting caught for a motoring offence more than 20 years’ later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Deduction says:
    @Doug
    The British sitcom Peep Show also lampooned the casualty of burglaries in England. The main characters' flat get burgled once, then they catch the teenage thief in the act coming back a second time. They call the police, who can't be bothered to show up for several hours. They lock him on the balcony, but he calls his mates from his mobile. Predictably a pack of yufs, shows up to the apartment banging down the door well before the police, who've already been called several hours ago. They agree to let him go to avoid having their apartment overrun, but letting him out the front door, the mob of teenagers take advantage and clean them out.

    The whole thing is treated as a casual weekend night, and the main characters even have dates over for the duration of the events. No one seems outraged at the police for dropping the ball and the characters basically feel sorry for the criminal. If a similar thing happened in Texas or Florida, the episode would be cut short in the first act as the burglar would have a belly full of hollow points.

    Uni students move out into private houses in their second year. They generally end up colonising whole streets in cheaper areas. This means that they are prime targets for burglary.

    It is so common at some unis that students don’t report it unless they have cleverly paid out for contents insurance. And by common I mean practically a universal experience.

    Property crime is treated very differently in the UK to the US. Here is it considered quite minor, not even something to be reported except for insurance purposes, a cause for comedic resignation. Even in Afghanistan US soldiers could use their firearms to defend US military property from theft whereas it was prohibited for UK personnel to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Do all British university undergraduate move into private houses after the first year? I thought that Cambridge and Oxford accomodated most of them throughout their three years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. UK crime has fallen since its peak of early-90s, when Michael Howard (Tory Home Secretary) started jailing more criminals. Prison population doubled (from a very low level – by the 80s fewer people were in jail than in the low-crime 50s) , crime fell and Polly Toynbee wrote “Crime is falling, yet the prison population has never been so high”.

    Home invasions in recent years have tended to be a black thing, and to happen either in cities, or in wealthy London suburbs.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4676898.stm

    There’s also a trend in following wealthy-looking people (usually women) home and jumping them on the doorstep.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247040/Millionaire-muggers-targeted-London-celebrities-including-F1-boss-Bernie-Ecclestone-guilty-2m-robbery-spree.html

    Then there’s the targeting of rich mums with their small kids

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nappy-valley-crook-who-mugged-young-mothers-went-from-emergency-benefits-loan-to-holiday-in-miami-in-8117430.html

    (note that they cashed in the rings and jewellery at Hatton Garden, whose famously gullible businessmen would never have guessed that the expensive jewellery the young black guys brought in was stolen)

    Few home invasions out in the sticks, where the traveller curse (stripping outhouses and garages of expensive garden equipment) is the main worry at present.

    There’s a subtext to current policing issues. Mrs Thatcher’s government took care to keep the police onside, recruiting more and upping their pay – she was to need them in the miner’s strike years. The current Tory administration and its coalition predecessor have smacked the police around, cutting budgets severely – by 20% with at least another 5% to come – while the population is rising and getting more ‘diverse’.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    At the recent Tory Conference Cameron slandered the police and was applauded for it.

    “Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a black person constantly stopped and searched by the police because of the colour of their skin. ”

    The current Chief Inspector of Police is a hatchet-faced financial lawyer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Winsor#Review_of_police_officers.27_.26_staff_pay_and_conditions

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    Some forces have started saying “you can pass laws but we may not enforce them because we don’t have the resources”.

    “A ban on drivers smoking while children are in the car is unlikely to be fully enforced, police chiefs have admitted”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    British police used to be a rock solid die-hard Tory voting powerbase.
    Perhaps they should transfer their political allegiance to UKIP.

    After all, whilst the Tories are cutting police spending to the bone, they have pledged to spend £12 billion on so called 'foreign aid'.
    UKIP have pledged to eliminate 'foreign aid' spending whilst protecting public sector pay.
    , @anon
    Regarding burglaries: in 2010 90% of those arrested for burglary in England and Wales were white, only 3.3% were black (which is equivalent to their share of the total pop.). Go to table 4.03.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219967/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    An interesting comparison would be the goodthinking lib journalist denunciation of the original “Straw Dogs” — there was definitely some — vs. the (IIRC lack of) reaction to the recent remake. To avoid getting bogged down in aesthetic/cineaste quibbling about the relative artistic merit and passe “torture porn” you could broaden it to contemporary violent movies of the 70s. Mark Steyn recently wrote about rewatching “Death Wish” which is the sort of thing people who become movie critics hate both for style & substance. Also Stephen Hunter’s criticism of the critics in re: “Bonnie and Clyde” has some bearing on this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @unit472
    I'd agree with Coates that incarceration is both expensive and, too often, counterproductive. There is a way though to punish most criminals AND limit their ability to commit new crimes without imprisonment however. Blind them. Not permanently but through the implantation of artificial cataracts. They can then be returned to the care of their families or housed in unsecured dormitory style facilities. While some white collar criminals might have to be locked up ( Coates would no doubt approve of that ) the average street thug would be rendered harmless were he blind. In fact his very vulnerability might be the only way to change his behavior and socialize him. No longer could he threaten or commit violence to achieve his objectives. He would have to learn to appeal to people's sense of fair play and decency.

    Five to Ten years of being blind ought to be sufficient to atone for all but the most egregious offenses and the criminal would not be further brutalized by the prison experience. The only supervision they would require would be a periodic inspection to make sure they did not have their 'blinders' removed prematurely and , at the conclusion of their sentence, the blinders would be removed and the criminal, hopefully reformed, sent on his way.

    It’s an interesting proposal but there’s no way it would pass the cruel-and-unusual standard as the SCOTUS would likely interpret it. A less spiritually heavy but still practically effective technique would be administering a paralytic so violent prisoners were wheelchair-bound (of course this would certainly cause some “permanent” damage if maintained for 5-10 yrs). In fact I am surprised a variation of this hasn’t already been tried…? Yet we push psychotropic drugs on adolescents who haven’t been convicted of anything, in the name of social adaptation.

    Speaking of “Raging Bull”– it features a notable scene of solitary confinement. I’ve seen it argued i.e. on the “Law & Order” intellectual level that this routine practice is mind-warping and even akin to torture. Obviously it affects different goons differently, but how long till the bleeding hearts get their way and you can’t throw anybody in the hole even as a brief punishment?

    Also in the Washington Post a few years back, a prof from John Jay argued for reinstituting public lashings, Singapore-style, as a way to reserve more prison capacity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment can be gotten around were blindness offered as an alternative punishment the criminal could himself choose. Instead of a prison term the convict could choose to be blinded for a shorter sentence. Say 1 year for every 4 years of prison time thus a criminal facing a twenty plus year sentence might agree to cataracts being implanted for 5 years over that 20 year prison term.

    It would be a useful experiment to see if temporary blindness achieved a more profound behavior modification than incarceration. I believe it would.
    , @Jacobite
    Better to put them to work in chain gangs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. unit472 says:
    @Anonymous
    It's an interesting proposal but there's no way it would pass the cruel-and-unusual standard as the SCOTUS would likely interpret it. A less spiritually heavy but still practically effective technique would be administering a paralytic so violent prisoners were wheelchair-bound (of course this would certainly cause some "permanent" damage if maintained for 5-10 yrs). In fact I am surprised a variation of this hasn't already been tried...? Yet we push psychotropic drugs on adolescents who haven't been convicted of anything, in the name of social adaptation.

    Speaking of "Raging Bull"-- it features a notable scene of solitary confinement. I've seen it argued i.e. on the "Law & Order" intellectual level that this routine practice is mind-warping and even akin to torture. Obviously it affects different goons differently, but how long till the bleeding hearts get their way and you can't throw anybody in the hole even as a brief punishment?

    Also in the Washington Post a few years back, a prof from John Jay argued for reinstituting public lashings, Singapore-style, as a way to reserve more prison capacity.

    The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment can be gotten around were blindness offered as an alternative punishment the criminal could himself choose. Instead of a prison term the convict could choose to be blinded for a shorter sentence. Say 1 year for every 4 years of prison time thus a criminal facing a twenty plus year sentence might agree to cataracts being implanted for 5 years over that 20 year prison term.

    It would be a useful experiment to see if temporary blindness achieved a more profound behavior modification than incarceration. I believe it would.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous Nephew
    UK crime has fallen since its peak of early-90s, when Michael Howard (Tory Home Secretary) started jailing more criminals. Prison population doubled (from a very low level - by the 80s fewer people were in jail than in the low-crime 50s) , crime fell and Polly Toynbee wrote "Crime is falling, yet the prison population has never been so high".

    Home invasions in recent years have tended to be a black thing, and to happen either in cities, or in wealthy London suburbs.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4676898.stm

    There's also a trend in following wealthy-looking people (usually women) home and jumping them on the doorstep.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247040/Millionaire-muggers-targeted-London-celebrities-including-F1-boss-Bernie-Ecclestone-guilty-2m-robbery-spree.html

    Then there's the targeting of rich mums with their small kids

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nappy-valley-crook-who-mugged-young-mothers-went-from-emergency-benefits-loan-to-holiday-in-miami-in-8117430.html

    (note that they cashed in the rings and jewellery at Hatton Garden, whose famously gullible businessmen would never have guessed that the expensive jewellery the young black guys brought in was stolen)

    Few home invasions out in the sticks, where the traveller curse (stripping outhouses and garages of expensive garden equipment) is the main worry at present.

    There's a subtext to current policing issues. Mrs Thatcher's government took care to keep the police onside, recruiting more and upping their pay - she was to need them in the miner's strike years. The current Tory administration and its coalition predecessor have smacked the police around, cutting budgets severely - by 20% with at least another 5% to come - while the population is rising and getting more 'diverse'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    At the recent Tory Conference Cameron slandered the police and was applauded for it.

    "Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a black person constantly stopped and searched by the police because of the colour of their skin. "


    The current Chief Inspector of Police is a hatchet-faced financial lawyer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Winsor#Review_of_police_officers.27_.26_staff_pay_and_conditions

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    Some forces have started saying "you can pass laws but we may not enforce them because we don't have the resources".

    "A ban on drivers smoking while children are in the car is unlikely to be fully enforced, police chiefs have admitted"

    British police used to be a rock solid die-hard Tory voting powerbase.
    Perhaps they should transfer their political allegiance to UKIP.

    After all, whilst the Tories are cutting police spending to the bone, they have pledged to spend £12 billion on so called ‘foreign aid’.
    UKIP have pledged to eliminate ‘foreign aid’ spending whilst protecting public sector pay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Deduction
    Uni students move out into private houses in their second year. They generally end up colonising whole streets in cheaper areas. This means that they are prime targets for burglary.

    It is so common at some unis that students don't report it unless they have cleverly paid out for contents insurance. And by common I mean practically a universal experience.

    Property crime is treated very differently in the UK to the US. Here is it considered quite minor, not even something to be reported except for insurance purposes, a cause for comedic resignation. Even in Afghanistan US soldiers could use their firearms to defend US military property from theft whereas it was prohibited for UK personnel to do so.

    Do all British university undergraduate move into private houses after the first year? I thought that Cambridge and Oxford accomodated most of them throughout their three years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. jill says:

    It is practically illegal to defend yourself in Britain against a home intruder. Any object that is legal ( a baseball bat, a knife ) becomes illegal since you may cause injury to the intruder…

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20985-self-defense-in-the-uk-is-illegal

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Jacobite says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    It's an interesting proposal but there's no way it would pass the cruel-and-unusual standard as the SCOTUS would likely interpret it. A less spiritually heavy but still practically effective technique would be administering a paralytic so violent prisoners were wheelchair-bound (of course this would certainly cause some "permanent" damage if maintained for 5-10 yrs). In fact I am surprised a variation of this hasn't already been tried...? Yet we push psychotropic drugs on adolescents who haven't been convicted of anything, in the name of social adaptation.

    Speaking of "Raging Bull"-- it features a notable scene of solitary confinement. I've seen it argued i.e. on the "Law & Order" intellectual level that this routine practice is mind-warping and even akin to torture. Obviously it affects different goons differently, but how long till the bleeding hearts get their way and you can't throw anybody in the hole even as a brief punishment?

    Also in the Washington Post a few years back, a prof from John Jay argued for reinstituting public lashings, Singapore-style, as a way to reserve more prison capacity.

    Better to put them to work in chain gangs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Chain gangs are a good idea to recoup prison costs.

    "Slavery" was not outlawed in the 13th Amendment, just hereditary slavery. The 13th Amendment expressly permitted slavery as punishment for crime.

    Some US jurisdictions are now charging inmates for their upkeep. In other words, they haven't "paid their debt to society" until they have paid the cost of their imprisonment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Since the 1990s or so, the British government has been trying to fight back against crime.

    Only the public perception of it.

    Crime started taking off in a publicly noticeable way in the mid 1970s partly as a result of immigration – particularly black street robbers – and a bit later partly as a result of closing the factories down – particularly white burglars. The police tried to do something about it but the media and SJWs kicked off because the police response to the street robberies was racially disproportionate to the numbers.

    (It wasn’t; it was disproportionate to total numbers in the population but proportionate to the number of young blue collar males which is the correct metric but the media at the time and since were either malicious or innumerate so didn’t report it.)

    Police promotion at the time was through the ranks but after the riots that followed from the police trying to do something about street robberies the govt at the time created a promotion system whereby individuals who’d swear to uphold PC would be fast tracked to the top.

    This lead to the police force rotting from the top down as promotion by PC means the people in charge are always amoral scum and eventually that corrupts the system as a whole.

    That worked for a while (in the sense of making people believe the problem had gone away) as it lead to “sensitive policing” which was a euphemism for ignoring crime in high crime areas but as the truth spread anyway as crime got worse in the ignored areas and spilled over then the govt had to start building more prisons which in the official stats reduced crime but in reality just slowed the increase down (the rest hidden by ignoring high crime areas and fiddling the stats).

    #

    Thing is – if you have a fixed population then incarceration can be used as a eugenic process that gradually reduces the frequency of criminal genes but if you have constant mass immigration skewed to young blue collar males then you will be continually increasing those genes so incarceration just slows down the descent into hell.

    Eventually incarceration will become unaffordable and then the people responsible for the mass immigration will open the prisons as criminal gangs will be a much cheaper way of keeping the new serfs in permanent lock down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

    In the book “Crime” by Nick Ross, presenter of the BBC TV Crimewatch show, he states that one out of every three men born in Britain in 1953 has/had a criminal conviction. When I read this I was astounded, having been born a couple of years earlier myself, because I and my cohort were born into a country where there were few immigrants other than the odd Pole or Lithuanian left over from World War II and the use of recreational drugs was practically unknown until discovered by the Beatles on a visit to New York circa 1964.

    Obviously there were massive social changes taking place in the 1960′s, but I still find this figure quite stunning. Obviously I was completely missing out on what was going on when I was growing up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Most working class men would get a single conviction in their teens / early twenties - often over soccer violence or something drink related - and that was that. They weren't career criminals.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist

    Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

     

    Really? I think it unlikely that Britain has always had such high rates of property crime, and that such crime must have been 'hidden' in some way in the past. Wasn't the the UK of a century ago famously safe and orderly, with crime only increasing thereafter?

    A few years ago I read Guns and Violence: the English Experience, by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

    I wrote up a LibraryThing review of this book; please forgive me for quoting from it here:


    Malcolm begins by tracing out the laws on firearm ownership in England from the late middle ages to the present day. Several impressive facts emerge. First, acting in self-defence was not just expected throughout much of English history – it was considered a duty of citizenship. Next, firearm ownership was rarely controlled, was positively encouraged at points, and there is no correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime. In fact, the opposite holds true: guns were widely distributed in 19th-century England, but crime rates fell steadily, to the point that England was an almost miraculously safe country by late Victorian and Edwardian times.

    But all this changed in the 20th century, as increasingly draconian laws were passed periodically, starting in 1920, limiting the right to firearm ownership and abrogating a crime victim’s right to self-defence. The argument always made was that rising crime rates necessitated stricter gun control, but in fact Malcolm argues convincingly that British governments’ concerns about maintaining public order in the face of perceived threats from Bolsheviks, unionists and other class warriors were the real reason for these crackdowns.

    Never the less: if banning guns really kept crime down, wasn’t it worth it? Malcolm eviscerates this misconception:

    Still, it is important to know whether the many English firearms acts of the twentieth century have been beneficial: have they worked? The short answer is no, not if the goal was to reduce the use of firearms in crime, to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, to ‘shift the balance substantially in the interests of public safety.’ Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned, but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. … In 1904, before passage of gun restrictions, there were only 4 armed robberies a year in London. By 1991 this had increased 400 times, to 1,600 cases. From 1989 through 1996 armed crime increased by 500 percent at the very time the number of firearms certificate holders decreased by 20 percent. (p. 209)

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous Nephew
    UK crime has fallen since its peak of early-90s, when Michael Howard (Tory Home Secretary) started jailing more criminals. Prison population doubled (from a very low level - by the 80s fewer people were in jail than in the low-crime 50s) , crime fell and Polly Toynbee wrote "Crime is falling, yet the prison population has never been so high".

    Home invasions in recent years have tended to be a black thing, and to happen either in cities, or in wealthy London suburbs.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4676898.stm

    There's also a trend in following wealthy-looking people (usually women) home and jumping them on the doorstep.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247040/Millionaire-muggers-targeted-London-celebrities-including-F1-boss-Bernie-Ecclestone-guilty-2m-robbery-spree.html

    Then there's the targeting of rich mums with their small kids

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nappy-valley-crook-who-mugged-young-mothers-went-from-emergency-benefits-loan-to-holiday-in-miami-in-8117430.html

    (note that they cashed in the rings and jewellery at Hatton Garden, whose famously gullible businessmen would never have guessed that the expensive jewellery the young black guys brought in was stolen)

    Few home invasions out in the sticks, where the traveller curse (stripping outhouses and garages of expensive garden equipment) is the main worry at present.

    There's a subtext to current policing issues. Mrs Thatcher's government took care to keep the police onside, recruiting more and upping their pay - she was to need them in the miner's strike years. The current Tory administration and its coalition predecessor have smacked the police around, cutting budgets severely - by 20% with at least another 5% to come - while the population is rising and getting more 'diverse'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    At the recent Tory Conference Cameron slandered the police and was applauded for it.

    "Opportunity doesn’t mean much to a black person constantly stopped and searched by the police because of the colour of their skin. "


    The current Chief Inspector of Police is a hatchet-faced financial lawyer.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Winsor#Review_of_police_officers.27_.26_staff_pay_and_conditions

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31771456

    Some forces have started saying "you can pass laws but we may not enforce them because we don't have the resources".

    "A ban on drivers smoking while children are in the car is unlikely to be fully enforced, police chiefs have admitted"

    Regarding burglaries: in 2010 90% of those arrested for burglary in England and Wales were white, only 3.3% were black (which is equivalent to their share of the total pop.). Go to table 4.03.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219967/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Rifleman says:

    Michael Winner’s widow beaten with iron bar in burglary

    Geraldine Winner, widow of film director Michael Winner, is in a stable condition in hospital after armed intruders forced their way into her home

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11925091/Michael-Winners-widow-beaten-with-iron-bar-in-burglary.html

    ————————————————————————–

    This 5’10″ man was held at sword point by a 5’7″ woman who had trained in medieval combat with the Society for Creative Anachronism.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/10/10/indy-woman-uses-medieval-combat-training-sword-stop-intruder/73669428/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    The intruder's name was Wessel. As in Horst. Any relation?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Pat Casey says:

    What can my age say but Home Alone? We grew up making booby-traps for sis, dreaming of a bee-bee gun, reciting a scene from a fake old flick called Angels With Filthy Souls: “I’m gonna give you to the count of ten to get your ugly, yella, no-good keister off my property, before I pump your guts full ‘a lead.” There was never an inkling beyond imagination about the real thing, and it hasn’t happened to anyone I know to my knowledge.

    That recent post about our uninhibited and obtrusive syrian brothers, who unpack our belongings and rifle through our technology and walk off wearing our shoes, well I wonder exactly where do they draw the line, and maybe do the tale-end idiots occasionally walk into a stranger’s home from the thought of a snack? Maybe it’s about all the sand, makes any boundaries kinda vague, being lines in the sand. And everyone’s shoes are always full of sand so what’s the difference the sand never stops

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Jonathan Mason
    Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

    In the book "Crime" by Nick Ross, presenter of the BBC TV Crimewatch show, he states that one out of every three men born in Britain in 1953 has/had a criminal conviction. When I read this I was astounded, having been born a couple of years earlier myself, because I and my cohort were born into a country where there were few immigrants other than the odd Pole or Lithuanian left over from World War II and the use of recreational drugs was practically unknown until discovered by the Beatles on a visit to New York circa 1964.

    Obviously there were massive social changes taking place in the 1960's, but I still find this figure quite stunning. Obviously I was completely missing out on what was going on when I was growing up.

    Most working class men would get a single conviction in their teens / early twenties – often over soccer violence or something drink related – and that was that. They weren’t career criminals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Jonathan Mason
    Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

    In the book "Crime" by Nick Ross, presenter of the BBC TV Crimewatch show, he states that one out of every three men born in Britain in 1953 has/had a criminal conviction. When I read this I was astounded, having been born a couple of years earlier myself, because I and my cohort were born into a country where there were few immigrants other than the odd Pole or Lithuanian left over from World War II and the use of recreational drugs was practically unknown until discovered by the Beatles on a visit to New York circa 1964.

    Obviously there were massive social changes taking place in the 1960's, but I still find this figure quite stunning. Obviously I was completely missing out on what was going on when I was growing up.

    Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

    Really? I think it unlikely that Britain has always had such high rates of property crime, and that such crime must have been ‘hidden’ in some way in the past. Wasn’t the the UK of a century ago famously safe and orderly, with crime only increasing thereafter?

    A few years ago I read Guns and Violence: the English Experience, by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

    I wrote up a LibraryThing review of this book; please forgive me for quoting from it here:

    Malcolm begins by tracing out the laws on firearm ownership in England from the late middle ages to the present day. Several impressive facts emerge. First, acting in self-defence was not just expected throughout much of English history – it was considered a duty of citizenship. Next, firearm ownership was rarely controlled, was positively encouraged at points, and there is no correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime. In fact, the opposite holds true: guns were widely distributed in 19th-century England, but crime rates fell steadily, to the point that England was an almost miraculously safe country by late Victorian and Edwardian times.

    But all this changed in the 20th century, as increasingly draconian laws were passed periodically, starting in 1920, limiting the right to firearm ownership and abrogating a crime victim’s right to self-defence. The argument always made was that rising crime rates necessitated stricter gun control, but in fact Malcolm argues convincingly that British governments’ concerns about maintaining public order in the face of perceived threats from Bolsheviks, unionists and other class warriors were the real reason for these crackdowns.

    Never the less: if banning guns really kept crime down, wasn’t it worth it? Malcolm eviscerates this misconception:

    Still, it is important to know whether the many English firearms acts of the twentieth century have been beneficial: have they worked? The short answer is no, not if the goal was to reduce the use of firearms in crime, to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, to ‘shift the balance substantially in the interests of public safety.’ Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned, but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. … In 1904, before passage of gun restrictions, there were only 4 armed robberies a year in London. By 1991 this had increased 400 times, to 1,600 cases. From 1989 through 1996 armed crime increased by 500 percent at the very time the number of firearms certificate holders decreased by 20 percent. (p. 209)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seminumerical
    My grandfather made a monthly trip to Inverness to buy his quota of .22 rifle bullets for my instruction. (He was a veteran of both world wars, D.S.O).

    He led me to believe that the tight regulation of firearms and ammunition at the time was because if the I.R.A.

    Was that a factor?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @anon
    Regarding burglaries: in 2010 90% of those arrested for burglary in England and Wales were white, only 3.3% were black (which is equivalent to their share of the total pop.). Go to table 4.03.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219967/stats-race-cjs-2010.pdf

    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill

    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.

     

    What on earth IS a "caution", anyway? Do the police just write you a ticket for burglary? "Don't let us catch you doing this again or you will really get in trouble!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Big Bill says:
    @Jacobite
    Better to put them to work in chain gangs.

    Chain gangs are a good idea to recoup prison costs.

    “Slavery” was not outlawed in the 13th Amendment, just hereditary slavery. The 13th Amendment expressly permitted slavery as punishment for crime.

    Some US jurisdictions are now charging inmates for their upkeep. In other words, they haven’t “paid their debt to society” until they have paid the cost of their imprisonment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Big Bill says:
    @The most deplorable one
    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.

    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.

    What on earth IS a “caution”, anyway? Do the police just write you a ticket for burglary? “Don’t let us catch you doing this again or you will really get in trouble!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
    A "caution" is a peculiar British invention. If a criminal admits he is guilty of a non-serious crime, the police can offer him a caution. If he accepts the caution, it goes onto his criminal record, and there is no other criminal penalty. Cautions are supposed to be used for first offenders in non-serious cases, to save wasting the time of the prosecutors and courts. As someone noted above, many people's criminal record consists of a single offence of drunkenness or affray.

    The system is sometimes abused, when cautions are given for repeat offenders and serious crimes; or when the police offer a caution because they know their evidence would stand up in court.

    Street robberies tend to be committed by black offenders; and home burglaries by whites. Home invasions are rare. The MO of the burglar is usually to remove any portable valuables as quickly as possible while the residents are out. It is hard to solve this kind of crime, unless the burglars leave fingerprints or obvious DNA traces. Residential areas do not have much CCTV.

    Prison sentences are lenient by US standards, and the time served is nearly always just half the sentence. We have 88,000 prisoners, about 30,000 more than in the 1980s when the figure was high by European standards. We have nothing like "three strikes and you're out", in fact the courts sometimes give career criminals several "last chances". If prison sentences were served in full, and if prison were always used when appropriate, we would have a similar fraction of the population in prison as the US - and that is without "three strikes" or a "war on drugs": possession of small quantities of marijuana seldom leads to jail.

    I suspect that one reason for the growth in prison population over the last 30 years is that we closed most of our mental asylums in the 1980s. Many former inmates can cope with "care in the community" (which at worst means no care at all), but for the ones who are unable to live sociably, the inevitable destination is jail. It is obvious from "fly on the wall" prison documentaries that many prisoners have mental health issues.

    For British crime news, this blog is informative: http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Rifleman
    Michael Winner's widow beaten with iron bar in burglary

    Geraldine Winner, widow of film director Michael Winner, is in a stable condition in hospital after armed intruders forced their way into her home

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11925091/Michael-Winners-widow-beaten-with-iron-bar-in-burglary.html
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This 5'10" man was held at sword point by a 5'7" woman who had trained in medieval combat with the Society for Creative Anachronism.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/10/10/indy-woman-uses-medieval-combat-training-sword-stop-intruder/73669428/

    The intruder’s name was Wessel. As in Horst. Any relation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Until 1960, Englishmen– perhaps all Britons– were required by law to engage in weekly archery practice. That alone might have discouraged home invasions.

    Though the law was repealed because few were obeying it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I see a connection there - you drop compulsory archery practice and in no time you have rising crime, long-haired rockers, LSD, teenage pregnancy, etc.

    I haven't time to go to Snopes right now, but I'm sure the archery thing is a myth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Rob McX says:

    Steve Sailer:

    Since the 1990s or so, the British government has been trying to fight back against crime.

    Not that I can see. The best proof of whose side the government is on is the way it treats people who defend themselves against burglars and home invaders. They’re usually arrested. They’re rarely charged and or convicted, but for an innocent middle-class homeowner, a few hours in a police cell is an unnerving experience – they’ll think twice about brandishing a steak knife at a burglar again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Rob McX says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Until 1960, Englishmen-- perhaps all Britons-- were required by law to engage in weekly archery practice. That alone might have discouraged home invasions.

    Though the law was repealed because few were obeying it.

    I see a connection there – you drop compulsory archery practice and in no time you have rising crime, long-haired rockers, LSD, teenage pregnancy, etc.

    I haven’t time to go to Snopes right now, but I’m sure the archery thing is a myth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I haven’t time to go to Snopes right now, but I’m sure the archery thing is a myth.
     
    Its being mythical hardly stops it from being true as well; cf. Pearl Harbor and Gallipoli.

    Here's a quick but serious legal analysis:

    http://archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Rob McX
    I see a connection there - you drop compulsory archery practice and in no time you have rising crime, long-haired rockers, LSD, teenage pregnancy, etc.

    I haven't time to go to Snopes right now, but I'm sure the archery thing is a myth.

    I haven’t time to go to Snopes right now, but I’m sure the archery thing is a myth.

    Its being mythical hardly stops it from being true as well; cf. Pearl Harbor and Gallipoli.

    Here’s a quick but serious legal analysis:

    http://archery.mysaga.net/archlaws.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Seems like it has always been so, at least since the time of Shakespeare.

     

    Really? I think it unlikely that Britain has always had such high rates of property crime, and that such crime must have been 'hidden' in some way in the past. Wasn't the the UK of a century ago famously safe and orderly, with crime only increasing thereafter?

    A few years ago I read Guns and Violence: the English Experience, by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

    I wrote up a LibraryThing review of this book; please forgive me for quoting from it here:


    Malcolm begins by tracing out the laws on firearm ownership in England from the late middle ages to the present day. Several impressive facts emerge. First, acting in self-defence was not just expected throughout much of English history – it was considered a duty of citizenship. Next, firearm ownership was rarely controlled, was positively encouraged at points, and there is no correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of violent crime. In fact, the opposite holds true: guns were widely distributed in 19th-century England, but crime rates fell steadily, to the point that England was an almost miraculously safe country by late Victorian and Edwardian times.

    But all this changed in the 20th century, as increasingly draconian laws were passed periodically, starting in 1920, limiting the right to firearm ownership and abrogating a crime victim’s right to self-defence. The argument always made was that rising crime rates necessitated stricter gun control, but in fact Malcolm argues convincingly that British governments’ concerns about maintaining public order in the face of perceived threats from Bolsheviks, unionists and other class warriors were the real reason for these crackdowns.

    Never the less: if banning guns really kept crime down, wasn’t it worth it? Malcolm eviscerates this misconception:

    Still, it is important to know whether the many English firearms acts of the twentieth century have been beneficial: have they worked? The short answer is no, not if the goal was to reduce the use of firearms in crime, to make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns, to ‘shift the balance substantially in the interests of public safety.’ Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned, but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold. … In 1904, before passage of gun restrictions, there were only 4 armed robberies a year in London. By 1991 this had increased 400 times, to 1,600 cases. From 1989 through 1996 armed crime increased by 500 percent at the very time the number of firearms certificate holders decreased by 20 percent. (p. 209)

     

    My grandfather made a monthly trip to Inverness to buy his quota of .22 rifle bullets for my instruction. (He was a veteran of both world wars, D.S.O).

    He led me to believe that the tight regulation of firearms and ammunition at the time was because if the I.R.A.

    Was that a factor?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Adar. says:

    “Burgess based the incident on something that happened to his wife’s family during WWII at the hands of U.S. GIs. (There’s a lot of social history that’s been swept under the rug about life in England before D-Day as the country filled up with young Americans waiting around to fight the Germans.)”

    About seventeen GI’s were executed by Eisenhower in England for raping Englishwomen. An Englishman had not been executed for rape in England since the 1860′s but the GI away from home was expected to comport himself in a much better manner but often did not. Think that about one and one half million randy young men went through England that amount of crime they committed was relatively low.

    Louis Till was hung by Mark Clark in Italy for murdering and raping Italian women. Did so but was in the habit of doing so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Big Bill

    Those were for cautions.

    You clearly did not notice table 3.08 on arrests per 1000 by ethnicity.

    Also, you did not notice the cautions for robbery in the same table you cited.

     

    What on earth IS a "caution", anyway? Do the police just write you a ticket for burglary? "Don't let us catch you doing this again or you will really get in trouble!"

    A “caution” is a peculiar British invention. If a criminal admits he is guilty of a non-serious crime, the police can offer him a caution. If he accepts the caution, it goes onto his criminal record, and there is no other criminal penalty. Cautions are supposed to be used for first offenders in non-serious cases, to save wasting the time of the prosecutors and courts. As someone noted above, many people’s criminal record consists of a single offence of drunkenness or affray.

    The system is sometimes abused, when cautions are given for repeat offenders and serious crimes; or when the police offer a caution because they know their evidence would stand up in court.

    Street robberies tend to be committed by black offenders; and home burglaries by whites. Home invasions are rare. The MO of the burglar is usually to remove any portable valuables as quickly as possible while the residents are out. It is hard to solve this kind of crime, unless the burglars leave fingerprints or obvious DNA traces. Residential areas do not have much CCTV.

    Prison sentences are lenient by US standards, and the time served is nearly always just half the sentence. We have 88,000 prisoners, about 30,000 more than in the 1980s when the figure was high by European standards. We have nothing like “three strikes and you’re out”, in fact the courts sometimes give career criminals several “last chances”. If prison sentences were served in full, and if prison were always used when appropriate, we would have a similar fraction of the population in prison as the US – and that is without “three strikes” or a “war on drugs”: possession of small quantities of marijuana seldom leads to jail.

    I suspect that one reason for the growth in prison population over the last 30 years is that we closed most of our mental asylums in the 1980s. Many former inmates can cope with “care in the community” (which at worst means no care at all), but for the ones who are unable to live sociably, the inevitable destination is jail. It is obvious from “fly on the wall” prison documentaries that many prisoners have mental health issues.

    For British crime news, this blog is informative: http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007