Posted on October 25, 2011

Black and Asian Rioters Disproportionately Involved in Disturbances

Tom Whitehead, Telegraph (London), October 24, 2011

More than half of those charged with offences were from a black or ethnic minority background, compared with 42 per cent who were white, the Ministry of Justice figures showed.

In some areas of the country the proportion of black rioters were more than five times the local population.

In the most detailed breakdown yet of the disturbances, it also emerged that more than a third of youngsters involved had been excluded from school in the previous year.

One in three adults were claiming unemployment benefits, compared with a 12 per cent national average, and 160 rioters were in receipt of disability or incapacity allowances.

The scale of offending was also revealed for the first time as figures showed more than 2,500 shops and businesses were targeted and one in eight crimes were street muggings or other offences against individuals.

However, fears that gangs had spearheaded the disturbances were dismissed as the analysis showed only 13 per cent of offenders belonged to one.

In terms of ethnicity, 46 per cent of those appearing in court were from black or mixed black backgrounds, 42 per cent were white and seven per cent were Asian.

In Haringey, north London, Nottingham, and Birmingham–three key scenes of the disturbances–the proportion of those brought before the courts over the riots who were white was significantly lower, and those from a black and mixed black background significantly higher, than the proportion in the resident population.

In general, those involved in the looting and violence which swept through English cities in August were younger, poorer, involved in more trouble and achieved lower grades than average, detailed analysis of the histories of those charged over the disturbances showed.

Some two-fifths of youngsters were in receipt of free school meals, compared with less than a fifth on average, and two-thirds had special educational needs, compared with the average of a fifth of all pupils, the figures showed.

Last month, Education Secretary Michael Gove admitted the riots had shown an “educational underclass”.

But gang membership, which Iain Duncan Smith blamed earlier this month for playing a “significant part” in the riots, was not considered pivotal by most forces, officials said.

The Work and Pensions Secretary said the riots were a “wake-up call” which showed “containing” the underclass had failed.

9 responses to “Black and Asian Rioters Disproportionately Involved in Disturbances”

  1. Anonymous says:

    Whenever an article about crime involving ‘Asians’ is written, it almost exclusively refers to Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. Do not be confused: this does not refer to Japanese high school students or Korean football fans!

  2. Woody Woodpecker says:

    @ 1

    Yes, I have noticed this myself. The brits do this quite a bit. They say “Asian” when they really mean Pakistani/Indian/South Asians (and usually Muslims). The Japanese and Koreans are some of the most productive, civilized and law abiding people on the planet. But the left will say “asian” to protect the lower people of south asia from being singled out. Just ridiculous.

  3. Ryan says:

    I think most people realize this by now Anonymous at 6:59 PM. If it’s British and they say Asian, its East Indian/South Asian. Certainly not Chinese/Korean/Japanese.

  4. white is right, black is whack says:

    Blacks rioting? Oh, it’s not their fault. They are angry at (fill in usual excuse against white people) and are venting their frustrations against (fill in usual excuse against white people) after years of (fill in usual excuse against white people). Doesn’t matter. Where there are whites, blacks can attack them and force everything the whites have to give to blacks and do so under the guise of ‘eliminating oppression’ or ‘eliminating racism’ or ‘leveling the playing field.’

  5. Jason Robertson says:

    Statistics come from the UK Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Metropolitan Police. Their analysis tends to play down “racial” aspects and play up “deprivation”, and the left-liberal media adds further spin to challenge “significant” involvement of “black gangs”.

    However, the initial disturbances were “provoked” by police shooting an alleged gang member, and by the involvement of Operation Trident, which was set up specifically to deal with black crime (including black-on-black gang violence, Jamaican drug imports, &c). There are numerous black youth gangs in Greater London who call the police “feds”.

    There was a police stand-off in the early period of rioting when some of the worst arson occurred, and quite probably many of the worst black offenders have not (yet) been identified and caught. There was some evidence that flash mobs operated outside their own immediate localities.

    In West Yorkshire 19 per cent of arrestees were known gang members – in roughly the same proportion as in London. The Home Office admitted “examples which suggested orchestrated offending relating to gang activity” including “a serious firearms incident in the West Midlands”.

    It would be fair to say that on the whole white looters took advantage of the devastation previously caused largely by black youths.

    Some “whites” would not be of English ancestry. One in eight of those eventually jailed were born abroad.

    The disproportionate number of blacks among the rioters was officially “explained” by the fact that rioting occurred mainly in “black” areas! – a ridiculous non sequitur. (Poverty-stricken Bangladeshis did not riot.) In Haringey and Croydon where the young black population hovers around 16 per cent, about half the alleged rioters were black. In distant Nottingham 62 per cent of the defendants were black compared to 9 per cent locally.

    Two thirds of these young people who made up the rioting majority were educationally subnormal and over a third had been excluded from school in the past year. Three quarters of those prosecuted had previous convictions, including 26 per cent with ten or more offences. No ethnic breakdown is easily obtainable.

    Some 2,584 shops and business premises were attacked, and over 660 robberies or violent street attacks on individuals. (Black youths are disproportionately responsible for muggings and knife crimes in London.) Police initially estimated up to £300m liabilities for criminal damage and loss, with policing costs at £74m.

    Criminologists need to pay attention not only to the biology of age and sex, but also race, and to the issue of frictional ethnic identities in multi-ethnic societies.

  6. John Engelman says:

    2 — Woody Woodpecker wrote at 8:24 PM on October 25:

    @ 1

    Yes, I have noticed this myself. The brits do this quite a bit. They say “Asian” when they really mean Pakistani/Indian/South Asians (and usually Muslims). The Japanese and Koreans are some of the most productive, civilized and law abiding people on the planet. But the left will say “asian” to protect the lower people of south asia from being singled out. Just ridiculous.


    I have been told that my use of the word “Oriental” is not politically correct. The problem with that word is not that it is derogatory toward Chinese, Koreans. Japanese, and Vietnamese. The problem is that it clearly distinguishes between them and Asians who cause problems wherever they live, and wherever they move.

    People from India are usually pretty decent, but they are of a different race from Orientals.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The only reason large numbers of muslim youth (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Somalis) did not riot is because it was during the Month of Ramadan. Had the riots broke out in July or September far worse damage would have been done with tens of thousands of muslim youth pouring into the streets to loot, burn and commit acts of violence.

  8. LastEuropean says:

    The riots were the perfect storm, a combination of “multicult” and liberal justice system.

    The average rioter had 15 criminal offences and most of them did not spend a night in jail.

  9. Pat says:

    Regarding the transatlantic confusion when describing ethnic groups I would say Nos. 1 and 3 are right. Leaving aside White and Mixed race this is how they were shown on the 2001 Census –

    Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other Asian (non Chinese), Black Caribbean, Black African, Other Black, Chinese, Other

    The first three are usually referred to as ‘Asian’ as the word ‘Pakis’ is generally regarded as derogatory.

    The Chinese are just that. As far as I know we have no significant numbers of Japanese, Koreans or Vietnamese. If we did their National names would be used.